Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats

oa
te

Vatete

$2325 Ttiss=s2te523-3-5-
Joteteret- viedo Feb arete ses tiete

aiete

sicieesas
totes Sietee +4

pesecerests

perrpr ries teers
333: : ttTITiht
estes

popeeetrrrrrs seit itt ts
poet Pees STesees rere sesesss ts -teee teeter tes

se
sens

ran

iene

F 2 Whe. eee y
mil Whe

@ ?
~ a

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 23

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1
1966

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion 761. Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 re ermenns Added
to the Official List of Generic Names.. :

Opinion 762. Suppression under the plenary powers of seven specific
names of Holothurioidea HL! MS

Opinion 763. Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818 (Crustacea, Decapoda):
Validated under the plenary powers with designation of Cancer
seticornis Herbst, 1788, as type-species

Opinion 764. Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844 (Mollusca) and Chaetodermis
Swainson, 1839 (Pisces): Added to the Official List of Generic Names

Opinion 765. Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931 (Foraminifera): Designation
of a type-species under the plenary powers <a yo

Opinion 766. Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1861 (Lamellibranchia):
Suppressed under the plenary powers... sie 3 es

Opinion 767. Serpula Linnaeus, 1758 (Annelida, Polychaeta): 00 he
tion of a type-species under the plenary powers et

Opinion 768. Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861 (Insecta, Hee
tera): Designation of a neotype under the plenary powers ...

Opinion 769. Yoldia Moller, 1842, and Portlandia Mérch, 1857:
Designation of type-species under the plenary powers

Opinion 770. Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 Sechiera Added to the
Official List of Generic Names.. ,

Opinion 771. Thamnophis sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia): Rejection
under the plenary powers of the neotype specimen designated for
that species by Opinion 385

Opinion 772. Curimata Walbaum, 1792 (Pisces): eae as a generic
name and placed on the Official Index :

Ill

Page

Pf |

TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI (Lacordaire): Proposed emendation
of family-group names under the plenary powers (Insecta,
Coleoptera). By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Washington, D.C.) and Elwood C. Zimmerman er
Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii) a Eat ae Ses

Podalonia Spinola, 1853 (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae): Proposed suppression
under plenary powers in favour of Podalonia Fernald, 1927, with
Ammophila violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species. By A.S.
Menke, R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California,
U.S.A.) and J. van der Vecht and a van Natuurlijke Historie,
Leiden, Holland) .. _ a am Be =e a Bp:

Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803): Proposed preservation as the name for the
Twaite Shad (Pisces). By A. N. Svetovidov Peek ie Institute,
Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) :

Gobius lenkoranicus Kessler, 1877 (Pisces): Proposed suppression as a
nomen dubium. By A. N. Svetovidov (Zoological Institute, Academy
of Sciences, Leningrad) .. = wa nee : zs ae

Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947 (Ammonoidea): Application to place
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with priority from
1876. By T. Matsumoto (Kyushu, Japan) and C. W. Wright (London)

Galerita Gouan, 1770 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official Index
together with addition of Galerita Fabricius, 1801, to the Official
Index. By Hans Reichardt (Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da
Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brazil)... ™ i = ‘ioe gen

Application to suppress four Richardson fish names. By P. J. P.
Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) -

Alden H. Miller (1906-1965): President, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature PO eae ee mie

Opinion 773. Tergipes Cuvier, 1805 EtSaeopoe Validated under the
plenary powers . ;

Page

Opinion 774. Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 (Gastropoda): Added to the
Official List with suppression under the plenary powers of several
nomina dubia ; oe wt

Opinion 775. Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 Naik: oe Added to
the Official List of Generic Names '

Opinion 776. Cratena Bergh, 1864 apmartasaee cy Added to the Official
List of Generic Names ... . : isd

Opinion 777. Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’ Donoghue, 1923 (Gastropoda):
Suppressed under the plenary powers with addition of Trinchesia
Thering, 1879, to the Official List

Opinion 778. Godiva Macnae, 1954 Sea pee OF Placed on the Official
List of Generic Names ... 4a

Opinion 779. Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 Sig isn, Placed on the
Official List of Generic Names.. Bo ae

Opinion 780. Lolidina Quatrefages, 1843 (Gastropoda): Suppressed
under the plenary powers i 3 a3 i a} om

Opinion 781. Flabellina Voigt, 1834 patron); Placed on the
Official List of Generic Names es 2 ite

Opinion 782. Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Gastropoda):
Validated under the plenary powers es Sof B bie

Opinion 783. Four Nudibranch pears genera: Placed on the
Official List of Generic Names.. : : vie ao

Proposed extension of the neotype concept. By P. J. P. Whitehead
(British Museum (Natural History), London) and M. Boeseman
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) =

Page

100

102

104

106

108

110

Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794, and Bythinus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
Proposed addition to the Official List in their original sense. By
Claude Besuchet (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, Swit-
zerland) i : 1 ee f

Megalichthys and Rhizodus (Pisces, Rhipidistia): Proposal for the
stabilization of these generic names. By Keith Stewart Thomson
(Department of Zoology, University College London)

Anthocoris nigrellus Zetterstedt, 1838, Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt,
1838, and Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallén, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera):
Proposed designation of neotypes under the plenary powers. By
J. Pericart (J0 rue Habert, Montereau, 77, France) ...

Request for revision of the part of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature relating to the function of conservation of names.
By Charles A. Long & Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology
and Museum ee Natural History, ere of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois, U.S.A.) . ce ts : Be ee :

Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): Proposed designation
of a type-species under the plenary powers. By L. A. Mound
(British Museum (Natural History), London) ... +n se o%s

Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation
of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Ronald W. Hodges
(Entomology Research Division, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Bes i
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : a ¥

Chromis aureus Steindachner, 1864 (Pisces, Chichlidae): Proposed
addition to the Official List of Specific Names. By E. Trewavas
(British Museum (Natural History), London) ... 2 a ns

Otolithus aureus Richardson, 1846 (Pisces, Sciaenidae): Proposed
addition to the Official List of Specific Names. By E. Trewavas
(British Museum (Natural History), London) ... a Sex as

Page

114

117

121

124

126

155

La?

158

Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression
under the plenary powers. By A. C. Pont (British Museum
(Natural History), London) an ae = bay sek

Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under
the plenary powers. By Carl Gans (State University of New York,
Buffalo, U.S.A.) ... a 43 bee ~~ +e ce me

STENOPODINAE in Insecta and STENOPODIDAE in Crustacea: Proposed
use of the plenary powers to remove the homonymy. By W. E. China
(British Museum (Natural History), London)... ,

Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] v. Capys Hewitson, 1864 (Lepidoptera,
Lycaenidae), a case of a forgotten name. By N. D. Riley (British
Museum (Natural History), London) oh Ane at ces

Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Salientia): Request for
suppression under the plenary powers. By Richard G. Zweifel
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.)

Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 (Amphibia): Proposed suppression under
plenary powers. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and
Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.),
John D. Lynch (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, U.S.A.) and Robert W. Reese (Department of Biology,
University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.) bie ae ah oe

The generic name for the Giant Salamanders: Proposed suppression of
Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831, and Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837
(Amphibia, Caudata). By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und
Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Phelsuma ornatum Gray, 1825 (Sauria): Proposed addition to the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Sencken-
berg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) ea

Hippocampus erectus Perry (1810) (Pisces): Proposed suppression under
the plenary powers. By Myvanwy M. Dick (Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ... Sa — site =

Vil

Page

160

162

164

165

167

169

174

176

178

vill

Tectarius (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Request for validation in its accus-
tomed sense. By A. Myra Keen Picci eagghigal of cay pica
University, California, U.S.A.) ..

Hippella Moerch (Mollusca, Pelecypoda): Request for suppression under
the plenary powers. By A. Myra Keen Be ae of eae
Stanford University, California, U.S.A.)

Planulina dumblei (Applin, 1925) (Foraminifera): Proposed suppression
under the plenary powers in favour of Planulina taylorensis (Carsey,
1926). By J. D. McLean, Jr. (Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.A.)

Gracilaria Haworth, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed addition to
the Official List of Generic Names. By Elwood C. Zimmerman
(Bishop Museum, Honolulu) and N. D. ae eh Museum
(Natural History), London) : ooh

Neolycaena DeNicéville, 1890 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designa-
tion of a type-species under the plenary powers. By C. F. Cowan
(Berkhamsted, Herts., England)... : ne a ,

Anopheles errabundus (Swellengrebel, 1925) (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed
suppression as a specific name under the plenary powers. By J. A.
Reid (c/o British Museum (Natural History), London) and J. Bonne-
Wepster (Institute for Tropical Hygiene, Amsterdam) bas

Enithares Spinola, 1837 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed use of the
plenary powers to designate a type-species. By I. Lansbury (Hope
Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford, England)...

Declaration 42. Abbreviations in compound names: Amendment of
Article 26 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature...

Opinion 784. Cardinalis preeee 1838 ae Validated under the
plenary powers.

Opinion 785. Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852 and Gonodactylus Berthold,
1827 (Crustacea, ee ae sien of clei rie: under
the plenary powers.

Page

179

181

183

186

188

190

191

198

201

204

Opinion 786. Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923 SO eee
Validated under the plenary powers -

Opinion 787. Baetis [Leach, 1815] (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): Designa-
tion of a type-species under the plenary powers together with
suppression of Ephemera bioculata Linneaus, 1758 ...

Opinion 788. Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): gies
tion of a type-species under the plenary powers ‘

Opinion 789. Rejection of the pamphlet by J. Hiibner, 1808, entitled
Erste Zutrége zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmetterlinge :

Opinion 790. Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, one) Crem:
Validated under the plenary powers ;

Opinion 791. Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949 (Nematoda):
Rejection of a neotype specimen 2 ee wae a

Opinion 792. Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801 a eae under
the plenary powers

Opinion 793. Nana Schumacher, 1817 Ns i ee sk ta under
the plenary powers

Opinion 794. ST PEED Jan, 1865 ede Validated under the
plenary powers :

Salpa Edwards, 1771 (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary
powers in favour of Salpa Forskal, 1775, with designation of a
type-species for Thalia Blumenbach, 1798 (Tunicata). By J. P. Waal
(University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa) .. aac

Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed designation of a
type-species under the plenary powers. By V. M. Dirsh (Anti-
Locust Research Centre, British Museum (Natural History), London)

Page

207

209

211

132

221

223

225

227

229

Zaz

235

Proteinus Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed designation
of a type-species under the plenary powers. By J. Jelinek (National
Museum, Prague) and W. O. Steel (Imperial College, London)

Musca lateralis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression
under the plenary powers. By A. C. Pont (British Museum
(Natural History), London) and J. G. Chillcott (Entomology Research
Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa) oA ca ae

Application to place on the Official Index of Rejected Names in Zoology,
the generic name Ratton and the specific names R. agreste, R.
blancodebaxo, R. colibreve, R. espinoso and R. tucotuco, dated from
Brants, 1827. By Alfredo Langguth (Dr. Senckenbergische
Anatomie der Universitét Frankfurt a.M., Germany) ... ae bibs

Diplosoma Macdonald, 1859 (Ascideacea): Proposed validation under
the plenary powers. was F. W. E. Rowe ae Museum er
History), London) ke 4

Thrix Doherty, 1891 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a
type-species under the plenary powers. By Lt.Col. C. F. Cowan
(Little Gaddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts., England)

Attus obscurus Taczanowski, 1872 (Araneae): Proposed suppression
under the plenary powers in favour of Cyrene bulbosa (Cambridge,
1901). By Maria Elena Galiano (Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia’’, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Hypaeus Simon, 1900 (Araneae): Proposed designation of a type- species
under the plenary powers. By Maria Elena Galiano (Museo
Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadayia”, Buenos
Aires, Argentina)

Translations of the Code

Report on the activity of the Commission regarding the clarification of
Code Article 23b...

Opinion 795. Asthraeus Laporte & maak 1837 passe pik esa
Validation of emendation to Astraeus..

Page

239

241

243

245

253

255

256

257

258

269

Opinion 796. Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 ao Added
to the Official List of Generic Names.. ; “a5

Opinion 797. Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854 amg
poda): Added to the Official List & = :

Opinion 798. Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798 oe Saupe
Designation of a neotype under the plenary powers..

Opinion 799. Sardina pichardus (Walbaum, 1792) (Pisces): Added to
the Official List as the name of the European Sardine :

Kerr, 1792, The Animal Kingdom (Mammalia): Proposal to place this
work on the Official List of Works Approved as available for
Zoological Nomenclature. By Hans-Jiirg Kuhn (Dr. Sencken-
bergische Anatomie der Universitat Frankfurt a. M., Germany)

Opopsitta marshalli Iredale, 1946 (Aves): Proposed setting aside of
holotype and designation of neotype. By Joseph M. Forshaw
(Division a be gliee Research, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, A.C.T.,
Australia) .. ms ve oe aoe es eet “i

Application to place on the appropriate Official List the names given by
G. Fischer, 1814, to the Cricetid Rodents described by Felix de
Azara in the French translation of ‘“‘Essais sur l’histoire naturelle des
Quadrupédes du Paraguay”, 1801. By Alfredo Langguth (Dr.
Senckenbergische Anatomie der Universitét Frankfurt a. M..,
Germany) ...

Index to Authors
List of Decisions in this volume
Index to Key Names ...

Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in
Volume 23 ae aN “se

Page

271

273

215

279

283

285

289

291

292

302

XII

Page

Corrigenda.... a: ae re “ a a Ba ee fe | |
Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the

present volume was published ... oo Li ait oe 5 «Spal

Instructions to Binders nae Bee sey ae vr Se oe Pe

> NAT. H
2 9 DEC 1966
= PURCHASED »

O my
< Og Y L\e

Volume 23, Part | 29th April, 1966
pp. 1-64

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications me
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature aa 1

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on .
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (28 August 1963)

Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London,
S.W.7) (31 May 1960)

Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘“G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16
December 1954)

Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)

BS io (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

uly

Dr. Henning LeMcueE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)

Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)

Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (23 July 1958)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958)

Dr. D. V. OpRuUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.)
(5 November 1958)

Professor Tohru Ucuia (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March
19

)

here eT a ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain)
31 May 1

Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary)

Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa,
a. (9 June 1961)

me W ea (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant

‘ecretary

Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962)

Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans,
Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Pcl) SToLL (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

‘ouncillor

Dr. L. B. Hottruuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(28 August 1963) (Acting President)

Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor)

Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963)
ete:
Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla
California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
(28 August 1963)

Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)

Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Professor. George Gaylord Smmpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

4 >
4
=

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE oer

Volume 23, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 29th April, 1966

NOTICES

(a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the
Commission as quickly ‘as possible, and in any case in time to reach the
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.
(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the
present part of the Bulletin:
(1) Validation of TRYPETESINAE Lacordaire, 1833, as the family-group name
for Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1733.

(2) Validation of Podalonia Fernald, 1827, with designation of Ammophila
violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species (Insecta, Hymenoptera).
Z.N.(S.) 1735.

(3) Suppression of Gobius lenkoranicus Kessler, 1877 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1737.

(4) Grant of priority from 1876 to Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947
(Ammonoidea). Z.N.(S.) 1738.

(5) Suppression of Clupea isingleena, Clupea nymphaea, Clupea caeruleo-
vittata Richardson, 1846 and Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1844
(Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1740.

c/o British Museum (Natural History) W. E. CHINA
Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary
London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on

March 1966 Zoological Nomenclature

ey
j

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTS ON TYPE-SPECIES OF SCIAENA LINNAEUS
Z.N.(S.) 850
(See volume 20, pages 349-360)

By Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps Institute of Oceanography,
La Jolla, California, U.S.A.)

As a working ichthyologist, currently engaged in taxonomic research on the
Sciaenidae, I wish to record my complete concurrence in principle with the proposal of
Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas regarding the generic names Sciaena, Umbrina and Argyroso-
mus, and to commend her scholarly and detailed discussion. Troublesome compli-
cations have long existed regarding the names of these important and very extensively
treated genera, and it is high time that appropriate action be taken to fix the nomen-
clature. Any revision of a prior Opinion should obviously be approached with
caution, but in this case is clearly called for, for the solution of the problems involved,
and because the original Opinion (93) introduced a taxonomic judgement, which was
not only undesirable but, on the evidence presented by Dr. Trewavas, also erroneous.

My only doubt and query regarding the proposals pertain to the statement in item
(2), “to Rule that the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, is to be accepted as
Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as designated by Cuvier, 1814..... , and restricted by
him in 1817, despite the fact that Cuvier misidentified that species in 1814.” This
proposal would put the Commission in the position of rendering (or confirming) a
taxonomic judgement, which I strongly feel it should avoid doing. There is also at
least a doubt in my mind as to whether Cuvier in 1814 designated a type-species,
according to the current provision of the Code. I suggest that paragraphs (2) and (3)
of the proposal be restated (without any change in the outcome) to something like:

(2) to Rule that the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, is to be accepted as

Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as indicated by Cuvier, 1814 (Mem. Mus.
Paris, 1 : 13), disregarding any assumed misidentification of the species in that
treatise.

[Item 5(a) specifies that Sciaena umbra is to be interpreted “‘ as restricted by Cuvier,
1817; hence it seems redundant to add this idea to proposal (2); furthermore, it is a
separate item and should, I would think, call for a separately numbered paragraph, if
given here.]

(3) to confirm the addition to the Official List of Generic Names that of Sciaena

Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species Sciaena umbra Linnaeus,
1758, as indicated by Cuvier, 1814, and as restricted by Cuvier, 1817 (so
determined by Plenary Power, in Opinion 93) (Name No. 444).

These changes are suggested to avoid the questionable statement that Cuvier, 1814,
designated a type-species, and to avoid the incorporation of a taxonomic decision into
the Opinion.

By Dr. W. E. China (Assistant Secretary,
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

On 26 March 1965, the Commission was invited to vote on Voting Paper (65)15
either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 354 as amended
by C. L. Hubbs (see comment above). This Voting Paper was later cancelled by the
Assistant Secretary, since the proposals were severely criticised by Commissioners in
returning their votes. Comments were as follows:

(1) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands).
** Judging by the text of Cuvier, 1814, as cited by Dr. Trewavas in her application,
that author definitely did not indicate a type-species for the genus Sciaena, the word
type even is not at all used in this text. However, it seems rather unimportant where
the first type designation for the genus was made, since the Commission in Opinion 93
has already indicated S. umbra L. to be the type of the genus Sciaena. If any doubt

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3

as to the validity of this indication exists, the Commission now should be asked, ‘ to
use its plenary powers to set aside all previous type designations for the genus Sciaena
and having done so to designate Sciaena umbra L., 1758 as the type of that genus ’, in
this way confirming the previous action.

“As Sciaena umbra L. is a composite species, a lecto- or neotype should be
selected for it, action, which, if I understand correctly, has so far not been undertaken.
Cuvier’s (1817) so-called restrictive action is not of any legal importance and certainly
not a lectotype selection. The lectotype that could be chosen is Artedi’s specimen,
but if there is any doubt as to its identity (it probably is no longer extant) a neotype
for S. umbra could be best indicated.

“For these reasons though I agree with the ultimate goal of Dr. Trewavas’
proposal, I object to the way in which she tries to obtain her end.”

(2) Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division,
Washington D.C., U.S.A.). “ The proposal as it stands is unsatisfactory on several
counts, though I do not disagree with the over-all intent. I believe that it would be
better (1) to suppress all previous type designations for Sciaena [to dispose of that by
Bleeker (1863)], (2) to reaffirm the designation of Sciaena umbra Linnaeus published in
Opinion 93, and (3) to decide, under Article 70a, that umbra is to be interpreted in its
strict sense and not in the sense of Cuvier, 1814. Such a solution would seem simpler
and more direct, and would reaffirm the nomenclatural part of Opinion 93.

“ T agree with Hubbs that Cuvier (1814) did not designate a type species for Sciaena,
and that the proposal needs rewording on that score. However, his proposed amend-
ment is also unsatisfactory. Cuvier (1814) does not show type by indication; that
method applies only to original designation (cf. Article 67b). Both Trewavas and
Hubbs have applied the unrecognized method of type by elimination. Regardless of
the taxonomic actions of Cuvier (1814 and 1817) all five species originally included in
Sciaena Linnaeus were still eligible for selection as its type-species. From the evidence
submitted, it appears that Bleeker (1863) produced the first legitimate type-designation.

‘ Opinion 93 was obviously brief and superficial in dealing with Sciaena (and with
others ?), and incorrect as well. Jordan, in the data given in Opinion 93, p. 9, says that
Cuvier (1815, ie. 1814 as now corrected) ‘ definitely chose agquila as the type of
Sciaena’, but the part of Cuvier quoted by Trewavas certainly shows no such designa-
tion. Furthermore, the nominal species aquila was not originally included in the genus
and is ineligible for type designation. However, the Opinion did choose umbra as the
type of Sciaena, and I see no need to repeal the very thing that is desired. The point
that we should now decide concerns the misidentification of the type-species, and
which course (umbra s. str. or the misidentified umbra) would now cause the least
confusion or contribute most to stability.”

(3) Dr. W. D. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia).

“While I agree with the general requests contained in this application, and in
particular with items (1) (2) (3) (4a) and (5) of Section 12 on page 354 (as modified by
Dr. Hubbs), I request the Secretary to contact the author respecting the details of (4b)
before the statement is published in the appropriate List. In particular:

“ (a) Is the date 1835 correct? On page 352, 3 lines from the bottom, it is referred
to as 1836 although 1835 appears elsewhere.

“(b) Is the type-species of Argyrosomus A. procerus? From the statement con-
tained in the application on pages 352-3, it appears that there are 3 species
names mentioned in the original statement of the genus. One is a nomen
nudum, another is an invalid emendation (and therefore a junior objective
synonym) of the third name. The third name (i.e. Sciaena aquila Cuvier)
must be the type-species.

“(c) If the statement of de la Pylaie regarding the new genus Argyrosomus contains
no more than the part quoted on pages 352-3, then the type-species is by
original indication not ‘ designation ’.

“ (d) Is it wise to include this synonymy here? First of all Cuvier (as reported on
page 351 of this application) regarded S$. aquila Cuvier as a species of his own.

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

He makes no mention of it being equivalent to Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde
and moreover, de la Pylaie specifies S. aquila Cuvier.

‘** Subsequent workers may regard this synonym as being a question of taxonomy
and not nomenclature, and unless the author of the application is satisfied that the
synonymy is objective, it had best be omitted.

*“* Finally is the synonymy objective between Perca regia Asso and Cheilodipterus
aquila Lacépéde? If not, it had better be left for the same reason.

“‘ If there is a problem here which affects the stability of Argyrosomus through not
relating it firmly to P. regia Asso, then a fresh application should be made to the
Commission for the use of the Plenary Powers to set aside previous type designations
for Argyrosomus and to designate P. regia Asso as the type species.”

Reply by Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London)
“In answer to Dr. Ride’s comments on Sciaena (Z.N.(S.) 850)
** (a) 1835 is correct.
“*(b) Dr. Ride is right according to Article 67e; so section 12(3b) of my amended
application should read thus:
Argyrosomus de la Pylaie, 1835 (gender: masculine), type-species, by
monotypy, Sciaena aquila of Cuvier (= Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde).

*(c) Rejection of de la Pylaie’s nomen nudum allows use of ‘ monotypy ’.

** (qd) It is true that in Le Régne Animal Cuvier did not attribute aguila to Lacépéde,
but in 1830, in Cuvier & Valenciennes’ Histoire Naturelle des Poissons,
vol. 5, p. 28, he has:

‘ (Sciaena aquila nob., Cheilodiptére aigle, Lac.) ’
Although Lacépéde did latinize his names, Cuvier always quoted his
vernacular version, which Lacépéde placed at the head of the page. Cuvier
used ‘ nob.’ more frequently than we should, especially for combinations
first proposed by him.

““The synonymy of Perca regia Asso and Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde is
subjective. On the assumption, which I have taken all reasonable steps to verify, that
no type exists for either, it can be made objective by selecting a single neotype for both.
Therefore, I hereby designate as neotype for both Perca regia Asso and Cheilodipterus
aquila Lacépéde the following specimen in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle
in Paris:

MNHN 7511 La Rochelle coll. D’Orbigny

The following particulars of this specimen are supplied by Mr. P. J. P. Whitehead
(measurements in mm.):

S.L. 420, depth 101, 1. of head 121. 2, of snout 35-3, diam. of eye 18-1, depth of
preorbital 12-8, interorbital width 29-5, 1. of upper jaw 54-6, of lower jaw 59-9, 1. of
P 80-3, of V 73-3, of longest anal ray 56:2. Géill-rakers on the first arch 5 + 1 + 8.
DX +128. ATII7. A slit in the abdomen shows appendages of the swim-bladder
of the kind described for ‘ le maigre ’ by Cuvier (1804, and in Cuvier & Valenciennes,
1830, pl. 139). From the introduction to Asso’s paper, S. Sebastian in the Bay of
Biscay is a possible locality for Perca regia. Dieppe was the locality of C. aquila
Lacépéde. The habits of the species make it probable that these localities are in the
range of one population, so that the selection of a specimen from La Rochelle, between
them, is not inappropriate for both names.”

In view of the comments by the above Commissioners, Dr. Trewavas has agreed
to resubmit her application as follows:

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Sciaena
Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now requested, and having done so,
to designate Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that
genus;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

(a) Umbrina Cuvier, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy,
Sciaena cirrosa Linnaeus, 1758;

(b) Argyrosomus de la Pylaie, 1835 (gender: masculine), type-species, by
monotypy, Sciaena aquila Lacépéde, 1803 [= Perca regia Asso, 1801].

[N.B. The generic name Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, has already been placed on

the Official List by virtue of Opinion 93.]
(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sciaena umbra to be in-
terpreted by the following neotype, here designated : A female of standard
length 310 mm. with dorsal fin-formula XI 25, with dark soft rays in
pelvic and anal fins and dark lower edge of caudal fin, without a mental
barbel. Registered Nr. British Museum (Natural History): Fishes
1893.9.21.10. Locality: Zara, Dalmatia. Collector Spada-Novak.
This specimen agrees with Artedi’s “‘ Gen. 39, syn. 65 ” whose descrip-
tion (misquoted with “ integerrimis ” instead of “ nigerrimis ”) was
used by Linnaeus as diagnosis of Sciaena umbra, (type-species of
Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758);

(b) cirrosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sciaena cirrosa
(type-species of Umbrina Cuvier, 1817);

(c) regia Asso, 1801, as published in the binomen Perca regia, as interpreted
by the neotype designated above (an objective synonym of Sciaena
aquila Lacépéde, 1803, type-species of Argyrosomus de la Pylaie, 1835).

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CACATUA.
Z.N.A(S.) 1647
(see volume 20, pages 372-374; volume 21, pages 156-161)

By Allan R. Phillips (Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma
de México, México, D.F.)

Issues are clarified when viewed in perspective. The International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature was designed to achieve stability; the plenary powers are an
emergency measure in case the Code alone fails to protect important (especially
medicinal) names like Musca, Aedes, Gallus, Columba, Felis, or Canis from technical
upsets. They are also useful where zoologists cannot agree on important old names
and their types, like Colymbus, or to avoid confusion and constant name-changing
brought about by long-overlooked old names. In this, as all know, they must express
the will of zoologists in general, not of small but noisy cliques. Their use by such
groups has already called forth protests and bids fair to return us to chaos, with each
zoologist accepting such decisions as he feels to be well-founded and rejecting the
remainder. Thus the main issue is continued respect for the Commission.

Surely the present case is a ““ tempest in a teapot ’’ in which zoologists at large are
uninterested. No important danger threatens anything except certain ego’s. The
Commission can best serve zoology, in such cases, by insisting on application of the
long-approved Rules, the well-known earliest name having priority. This will increase
universal respect for its decisions as being impartial and in the best interests of stability.
It will also decrease the Commission’s work load by discouraging future applications
for relief from the Rules without urgent basis.

It is also most desirable that the Commission, in cases which do seem to involve
urgent issues, make long and thorough investigations through independant specialists
to avoid any possibility of being influenced by untrue or misleading statements in the
applications submitted to it. It cannot but lose respect by making decisions on the
basis of what limited information may be, at the time, available to it, rather than on the
basis of ail available data. Maintenance of the highest standards at all times is of
utmost importance from everyone’s standpoint, unless there be those who would
destroy the Commission’s reputation by using it as a cat’s-paw for their personal ends.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR
PITHECOPS HORSFIELD, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 1675
(see volume 22, pages 69-71, 209-210)

By L. E. Couchman (West Hobart, Tasmania, Australia)

I have received a separate concerning an application by the late F. Hemming
suggesting a type-species fixation for Pithecops Horsfield, which would have the effect
of upsetting the corrected use of the name Zizula hylax Fabricius as published in 1940
by A. S. Corbet.

I most strongly support Col. Cowan in his application, which would have the effect
of continuing Corbet’s correction published twenty-five years ago (and subsequently
widely accepted) and allow us in Australia to continue to use the correct name Zizula
hylax attenuata Lucas.

Although I did not put this combination into print until 1962, in correspondence
and discussion with the late Dr. G. A. Waterhouse and others, the corrected name has
been used almost since the date of Corbet’s discovery in 1940, and following my
suggestion, my friend I. F. B. Common has used the corrected combination (Zizula
hylax attenuata Lucas) in his handbook to the Australian butterflies published by the
Jacaranda Press in Brisbane last year.

Hemming’s application would have the effect of reverting back to the former,
incorrect usage of hylax Fabricius for the Pithecops species, would revive the name

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

gaika Trimen for the Zizula species, and upset a perfectly normal correction which has
been accepted in Australia almost since the date of its publication by Corbet. Sucha
reversal now would cause endless confusion and surely bring the International Com-
mission into contempt for illogical name-changing.

I trust the Commission will act as suggested by Col. Cowan and thus continue the
nomenclature corrected by Corbet and accepted by writers in Africa, Asia and
Australia.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF AMBLEMA RAFINESQUE
1820, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1699
(see volume 22, pages 196-197 and 341)

By Fred R. Woodward (Museum and Art Gallery, Paisley, Scotland)

I agree completely with Dr. Clarke and Dr. Clench that the name Amblema
Rafinesque, 1820, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names and that
Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Names in Zoology.

The fact that Rafinesque first described the genus Amblema in 1819 with Amblema
ovalis as sole species and subsequently redescribed the genus in the following year
without even mentioning his previous descriptions or A. ovalis is not surprising in that
Isaac Lea as far back as 1832 writes (on page 8 of the first edition of his ““ Synopsis of
the Naiades ”?)—“‘ It will be observed that the works of M. Rafinesque are but little
quoted. This has arisen from the utter impossibility of satisfying myself as to his
species. The cause of which was, at an early period, the abandonment of pursuing
the impracticable task of making them out. His own discrepancy in the names sent
to Ferussac, and those which are attached to specimens here, together with the want
of accordance in the tables made out by his friends, have induced me to regard his
claims as being too slender to rely upon the decisions, so contradictory of the several
parties, in the (page 9) absence of the individual specimens noted.”

The fact that Amblema costata Rafinesque, can be readily identified from
Rafinesque’s original description coupled with the confirmation resulting from
Vanatta’s examination of the Rafinesque—Poulson type (1915, “‘ Rafinesque’s Types
of Unio., Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 67 : 556) leaves no doubt as to the validity of
this species, and since this species was selected by Frierson in 1914 as the type-species
of Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, whilst Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, was apparently
unidentifiable then it would, in my opinion, be in the interests of nomenclatural
stability to ignore Rafinesque’s 1819 usage of Amblema entirely.

It is highly desirable that this course of action should be taken since the alternative
would be the erection of a further unfamiliar genus which would only help to increase
unnecessarily the nomenclatural complexities of the North American Naiades.

Rafinesque gives the Ohio River and tributaries of the Kentucky as the type
localities for Amblema costata Rafinesque.

WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A
TYPE-SPECIES FOR STIZUS LATREILLE [1802-1803]. Z.N.(S.) 1710

By R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, U.S.A.)

Some new information has recently come to light that bears on our recent proposal
concerning the type-species of Stizus Latreille (see Bohart and Menke, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 22 (4) : 255-256).

It appears that Blanchard [1846] (in the ‘‘ Disciples Edition ’’ of Cuvier’s ‘* Le
Régne Animal, Les Insectes, Atlas,” part 2, plate 121, fig. 3) validly designated “* Stizus
ruficornis ”’ (=Larra ruficornis of Fab. 1804, =Bembex ruficornis Fabricius, 1787,
= Vespa ruficornis Forster, 1771) as type-species of Stizus. On the title page of the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

atlas, the following statement is made, “‘ Edition accompagnée de planches gravées,
representant les types de tous les genres, ...”

Pate (1937) in his catalog of Sphecid genera and their type-species did not mention
Blanchard’s type designation, and other Sphecid workers appear to have overlooked
it also.

As far as we can determine there is no reason for not accepting Blanchard’s
designation as valid. Consequently our recent petition would appear unnecessary and
should be withdrawn or cancelled inasmuch as Blanchard’s designation is in keeping
with the current interpretation of Stizus. We note that Blanchard’s type designations
have been accepted for certain Pompilid genera (Pate, 1946).

COMMENTS ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF TRYCHOSIS FOERSTER, 1868.
Z.N.AS.) 1712
(see volume 22, pages 259-260)

By J. F. Perkins (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Since Schmiedeknecht 1890 (Ent. Nachr. 16 : 114) clearly states that the type-
species of 7rychosis Foerster, 1868, is Cryptus titillator Gravenhorst (i.e. Cryptus
titillator (Linnaeus); Gravenhorst), this case should be treated under Article 70 (b) of
the Code and therefore does not require the plenary powers of the Commission.

Many of the earlier authors, on Ichneumonidae at least, made their intent of
interpretation of species completely clear by stating the authority that they followed,
when they suspected that the original type probably differed specifically from a later
interpretation that they followed. These cases can be solved at once by the applica-
tion of Article 70 (b) of the Code. In fact Perkins (1962, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.)
11 ; No. 8) followed this criterion throughout in relation to the Foerster genera of
Ichneumonidae for which there were no originally included species; advice was sought
that this would be correct procedure and this was agreed.

In the present case the type-species should now be quoted as follows:

Trychosis Foerster, 1868. Type-species Cryptus titillator [Linnaeus]; Gravenhorst,
by designation of Schmiedeknecht, 1890 = Trychosis mesocastanus (Tschek, 1870).

By G. van Rossem (Wageningen)

I do not think that Article 70b applies to this case, as Schmiedeknecht when he
indicated Cryptus titillator Grav. as the type-species of Trychosis did not make
“‘ deliberate use of a misidentification”’. The use of a wrong author’s name can not
be “‘ a statement that he employs its specific name in accordance with the wrong usage
of a previous author ”’.

I am nevertheless fully aware of the great number of cases which Dr. Perkins had
to deal with when working on Foerster’s genera, making it necessary to find practical
solutions.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR
PHASIA LATREILLE. Z.N.(S.) 1706
(see volume 22, pages 243-245)

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Entomology Research Di vision, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

I wish to record my opposition to the proposal by Herting (1965, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 22 : 243-245) for action under the plenary powers to suppress the Latreille
fixation of a type-species for Phasia and to designate instead Phasia rubra Girschner.

2. The fact that Phasia is the type-genus of a subfamily, Phasiinae, is actually
not important in the present case. All genera and species involved in the problem
are members of the same subfamily, and even of the tribe Phasiini in a restricted sense.
Thus no upsetting change in family-group names can be cited in support of suspension
of the Rules.

3. Herting remarks (paragraph 2) that Townsend’s proposal of Ectophasia for
Phasia of authors is unimportant in America because there are no nearctic species of
either Ectophasia or Phasia in Townsend’s sense. This is true, as far as known, but
there are nearctic species of Phasia in the strict sense (type subcoleoptrata), and we are
thus directly concerned with a decision on the proper use of Phasia.

4. Further points in the discussion will be emphasized by a chronological sequence
of relevant publications (for brevity, references already cited by Herting are not
repeated):

1767. Linnaeus described Conops subcoleoptrata, “‘ Upsaliae ”’.

1775. Fabricius: Syrphus subcoleoptratus (L.), “« Angliae ”’.

1794. Fabricius described the true Syrphus subcoleoptratus (L.), “ Habitat in

Suecia. Mus. Dom. Bosc.,” and proposed Syrphus hemipterus (now
Alophora hemiptera) for the English specimens previously misidentified
as subcoleoptratus.

1798. Fabricius: Thereva subcoleoptrata (F.), ‘‘ Habitat in Europa boreali Dom.
Bosc.” (Citations are given to Linneaus, 1767, and Fabricius, 1794.)

1804. Latreille: Phasia, new genus for ‘‘ Les Théréves de M. Fab.”

1805. Latreille: Phasia subcoleoptrata, citing as source “ Thereva coleoptrata
[sic] Fab.” (Fixation of type-species by subsequent monotypy. The
spelling is either a lapsus or a typographical error; cf. Latreille, 1810.)

1805. Fabricius: Thereva subcoleoptrata (F.), ‘‘ Habitat in Europa boreali Mus.
Dom. Bosc.”

1810. oe designated ‘‘ Thereva subcoleoptrata, Fab.” as type-species of
Phasia.

1824. Meigen correctly identified Phasia subcoleoptrata, having Swedish examples
from Fallén at Lund. Under P. crassipennis, Meigen mentioned a small
variety, about which he stated, as Herting notes, ‘‘ Dies ist Ther. sub-
coleoptrata in Fabricius Museum”.

5. Herting may be right (paragraphs 4-6) on the identity of the small variety of
crassipennis that Meigen (1824) found labeled “ Ther. subcoleoptrata ”’ in the Fabrician
Collection at Kiel, but I cannot agree with his further conclusion, based on the con-
ception of a misidentified type-speicies, that ‘‘ rubra Girschner is the type-species of
Phasia Latr.” The works of Fabricius and others between 1767 and 1794, and even
later, show that subcoleoptrata was often misidentified, because it does not occur in
Western Europe and the name was applied to various species. The existence of the
name On a certain specimen in the Fabrician Collection does not automatically assure
us of the entire usage of that name.

6. Most important, the Fabrician Collection is not the relevant and significant
material in the Phasia problem. The truly relevant material is that published as
Thereva subcoleoptrata by Fabricius (1798), to which Latreille (1804) must have
referred in his citation under the genus Phasia. That material was in the Bosc Collec-
tion, i.e., in Paris, and not in the Fabrician Collection in Kiel. One cannot say

Bull zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

positively that Latreille in Paris saw the Bosc specimens, but because of his close
association with Bosc, it is virtually certain that he did.t_ In any event his published
reference to “* Les Théréves de M. Fab.” inevitably refers us back to Fabricius (1798),
and thence to Fabricius (1794), in both of which only material from the Bosc Collec-
tion is cited for subcoleoptrata. Fabricius also referred only to the Bosc Collection
in 1805 in the summation of his work on Diptera. Meigen (1824) cited these three
Fabrician references in his identification of the true subcoleoptera from Sweden. I
must therefore conclude, contrary to Herting’s view, that Phasia subcoleoptrata was not
misidentified by Latreille, and that true subcoleoptrata Linnaeus is the type-species of
Phasia Latreille, as fixed (1805) and later designated (1810) by Latreille himself.

7. Furthermore, the descriptions of subcoleoptrata by Fabricius (1794, 1798) and
of Phasia by Latreille agree quite well, as pointed out by Dupuis (1949), and they
agree with typical subcoleoptrata but not with rubra Girschner nor with the description
of Meigen’s small variety of crassipennis. It should also be pointed out, as noted
above, that Meigen himself (1824) recognized the above agreement and cited sub-
coleoptrata of Fabricius (1794, 1798, 1805) and of Latreille under typical Phasia
subcoleoptrata (Linnaeus), which Meigen redescribed from Swedish examples received
from Fallén at Lund. I see no justification for ignoring the several major references
to Thereva subcoleoptrata given by Meigen on page 190, while giving special emphasis
and reliability to a mention of it in a sentence of discussion on page 186 under
crassipennis.

8. The erroneous use of Phasia was recognized over a half century ago by
Coquillett (1910) and Townsend (1912), and the latter proposed Ectophasia for
crassipennis Fabricius, representing Phasia of authors, not of Latreille. Townsend
maintained this usage throughout his life work on the family, which culminated in
his monumental “* Manual of Myiology ” in 12 parts (1934-42). Brooks (1945), in
reviewing the North American Phasia complex, followed Townsend’s conclusion.
Dupuis in 1949, and again in 1963 in his thorough and definitive monograph of the
Phasiinae, concurred and adopted Ectophasia. This same interpretation was also
recognized as correct by Sabrosky and Arnaud (1965) when preparing the section
*“* Tachinidae ” for the recently published *“‘ A Catalog of the Diptera of America
North of Mexico ” (Ectophasia is not included, but Phasia is used in the sense required
by the acceptance of Ectophasia for crassipennis). There are thus some major and
important modern works that have adopted the correct conclusions of Coquillett and
Townsend of a half century ago.

9. Although the correct name for the crassipennis group, Ectophasia, has been a
clearcut conclusion for over a half century, the correct application of Phasia itself has
unfortunately been confused. Both Coquillett and Townsend, under the name of
coleoptrata Fabricius, or even coleoptrata Latreille, misinterpreted the type-species
as being a synonym of Alophora hemiptera (Fabricius). Dupuis (1949, 1963) correctly
pointed out that the type-species is subcoleoptrata and that Phasia applies to the re-
stricted genus known as Phorantha Rondani. Sabrosky and Arnaud (1965) reviewed
the arguments on both sides, agreed with Dupuis, and followed him in using Phasia
for subcoleoptrata and allies.

10. The generic classification of this complex is still subject to difference of
opinion, but that is a zoological matter and not subject to rules of nomenclature.
Some authors recognize three genera, others only two. The crassipennis group
(Ectophasia, Phasia of authors not Latreille) is one genus; the Aemiptera (Alophora)
and subcoleoptrata (Phasia, Phorantha) groups may or may not be combined.

1 In volume | (1804) of the ‘* Histoire naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes,”’ on page viii
of the Preface, Latreille refers warmly to ‘‘ mes amis Olivier et Bosc,” “* avec lesquels je me
suis formé dans l’art d’observer les Insectes ”’.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11

11. The zoologically and nomenclaturally correct conclusion is that the type-
species of Phasia Latreille is typical subcoleoptrata Linnaeus. This has been adopted
without difficulty in important recent works on the group. The proposal to use the
plenary powers to designate rubra Girschner as type-species should be rejected as
unfounded and unnecessary.

REFERENCES

Brooks, A. R. 1945. A revision of the North American species of the Phasia com-
plex (Diptera, Tachinidae). Scientific Agric. 25 : 647-679

Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. 832 pp. (subcoleoptratus, 764)

— 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Vol. 4, 472 pp. (sub-
coleoptratus, 283)

— 1805. Systema antliatorum. 372 pp. (subcoleoptrata, 217)

LATREILLE, P. A. 1810. Considérations générales sur ordre naturel des animaux...
444 pp. (Phasia, type designation, p. 444)

LINNAEUS, C. 1767. Systema naturae (ed. 12). Vol. 1 (part 2): 533-1327 (sub-
coleoptrata, 1006)

SABROSKy, C. W. and ARNAuD, P. H., Jr. 1965. Tachinidae, in STONE et al., A
catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. 1696 pp. (Phasia, p. 969)

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR
PROSPALTELLA ASHMEAD, 1904. Z.N.(S.) 1713
(see volume 22, pages 261-262)

By B. D. Burks (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

I favor this action, because it will validate preponderant usage all over the world
for a period of 60 years. There is now an enormous literature using the name
Prospaltella in the sense of the type-species auranti (Howard), a cosmopolitan species.
The comprehensive paper that Howard published in 1907 (U.S.D.A., Bureau of
Entomology Tech. Ser. 12, pt. 4, ““ New genera and species of Aphelinidae with a
revised table of genera”) in which the type-species was given as aurantii established
usage throughout the world. The species murtfeldtae (Howard) that had been clearly
designated type-species in 1894 is one that occurs only in North America, it is rather
rare, and it is unknown to most workers. It would be a mistake to invoke priority at
this late date and rename Prospaltella Howard of 1907. I have long known that this
discrepancy between usage and priority existed for Prospaltella, but I rather thought
the matter would never be brought up, the actual type-species being conveniently
obscure. Now that the discrepancy has been made the subject of a proposal for action
He the i oa under their plenary powers, I can only express myself as being in

avor of it.

COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION AGAINST THE
SUPPRESSION OF NOMINA DUBIA. Z.N.(S.) 1715
(see volume 22, pages 265-266)

By W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth)

I agree with the disquiet expressed by Commissioner Sabrosky over a number of
recent applications for the suppression of names for the reason that they are nomina
dubia. But I am far from convinced that a formal Declaration is warranted or even
desirable. The term nomen dubium has no formal status in nomenclature and the
qualification of a name by this term requires no consequences through the Code;
moreover, it is not one of the conditions under which the use of the plenary powers is
authorized. It follows, therefore, that without fundamental modification of the Code
the Secretary can inform applicants for the suppression of nomina dubia (on those

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

grounds alone) that, while the term nomen dubium indicates that a state of nomen-
clatorial instability exists, the Commission, in being asked to use the plenary powers,
will require to know that the application of the normal provisions of the Code to the
particular case will disturb stability, or universality or cause confusion. This, in the
case of a nomen dubium, as well as being shown that the name cannot be allocated with
certainty, the Commission should be presented with a case which shows that:

either (a) a well-known name in common use for a stable taxon is made unstable

because of its possible synonymy with a more senior name which has
been regarded as a nomen dubium

or (b) the description, or type, of a nomen dubium is being interpreted in more
than one way and, accordingly, disrupting universality

or (c) the continued presence of a nomen dubium is otherwise causing confusion

and (d) that the situation cannot be stabilized by the normal application of the

Code through the fixation of the name by means of a neotype, or that
such fixation would lead to further confusion.

It should also be made clear to applicants that, even where the plenary powers are
fully justified, they need not be used in suppression. In certain cases, stability may be
served better by employing them to fix a nomen dubium in its accustomed usage, rather
than through suppressing it.

If the Commission issues a formal Declaration upon this matter, the Declaration
must be referred to the next Congress for modification and consequent amendment of
the Code (Art. 78). However, as Commissioner Sabrosky has pointed out (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 22 : 265) the London Congress held that the normal processes of taxonomy
should apply to nomina dubia and the Code needs no special provision for treating such
names. Since it would appear that the problem is not that the Code is at fault, but
that applicants are not aware that the cases which they present for the use of the plenary
powers are inadequate, it would follow that information from the Secretary to the
applicant is capable of solving it.

While the Secretary cannot take action upon himself which would seem as if he was
rejecting applications to the Commission, it must surely be within his normal duties
of service, both to the applicant and to the Commission, to see that the applicant is
aware that his application should contain the information which the Code demands
as a basis for action by the Commission in respect of Articles 78 and 79.

By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)

Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal seems rather sound in principle, but he fails to recognize
that nomina dubia may remain so and still become actual threats to important names.
It happens that a beautiful example of exactly that kind is presented on p. 270—three
pages after Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal. Xy/eborus Bowdich, 1825, threatens Xyleborus
Eichhoff, 1864, but the former name remains as much as ever a nomen dubium.

So, I think it inappropriate to bind the Commission to a rigid principle. The
Commission should be as free as ever possible to judge every single case on its own
merits. But I do agree that it is worth while trying to avoid unnecessary suppressions
of nomina dubia. So, my proposal is that Commissioners should silently agree in
principle but that they should take no general action.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13

OPINION 761

EUKROHNIA RITTER-ZAHONY, 1909 (CHAETOGNATHA): ADDED
TO THE OFFICAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 (gender:
feminine), type-species, by original designation, Sagitta hamata Mobius, 1875,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 1697.

(2) The specific name hamata Mobius, 1875, as published in the binomen
Sagitta hamata (type-species of Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2111.

(3) The generic name Krohnia Langerhans, 1880 (a junior homonym of
Krohnia Quatrefages, 1835) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1776.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1586)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in December
1962 by Dr. R. Alvarado and Dr. I. Moreno as a request for the use of the
plenary powers to place Krohnia Langerhans, 1880, on the Official List of
Generic Names. The application was sent to the printer on 7 May 1963 and
was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 381-382. Public
Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given
in the same part of the Bulletin and to the other prescribed serial publications
(Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 - 184). An objection by Mr.
N. Tebble was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21:90. As a result of this
objection Alvarado and Moreno withdrew their request for the use of the
plenary powers and asked that Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony should be placed on
the Official List (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 90).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 23 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)25 either for or against the
Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl.21:90. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 23 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe,
Lemche, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Ride, Sabrosky,* Forest,
Binder, Evans, Brinck, Bonnet.

Negative votes—three (3): do Amaral, Kraus, Mertens.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

* An affirmative vote in part only. See note below.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Prof. A. do Amaral (18.x.65): “* The present proposal seems not sufficiently
justified and rather illogical.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): ““ The data are meagre, but perhaps there is
no objection to placing a valid genus, Eukrohnia, on the Official List, along with
its type-species. But I vote against proposition (3). Must the International
Commission take its valuable time to place on the Official Index a name that is
automatically and definitely invalid under the Code, a junior primary
homonym? ”

Dr. Otto Kraus (22.x1.65): ““ I vote against the proposal for I cannot find
any reason for the Commission to act in the present case. This is quite an
everyday situation which is, without any difficulty, covered by the automatic
provisions of the Code.”

Prof. R. Mertens (22.xi.65): “I agree with the comments made by Dr.
Kraus.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references to names placed on the Official
List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909, Zool. Anz. 34 : 792
hamata, Sagitta, Mobius, 1875, Jber. Comm. wiss. Untersuch. dtsch. Meere,
Jahrg. II-III: 158, tab. 3, figs. 13-16
Krohnia Langerhans, 1880, Z. wiss. Zool. 34 : 132-136

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)25 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 761.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

19 January 1965

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

OPINION 762

SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF SEVEN SPECIFIC
NAMES OF HOLOTHURIOIDEA

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy:

(a) guamensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-

thuria guamensis ;

(b) lucifuga Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria

lucifuga;

thuria albifasciata;

(d) Jutea Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria

lutea:

(e) pentagona Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-

thuria pentagona;

(f) fusca Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Fistularia

fusca;
(g) timama Lesson, 1830, as published in the binomen Holothuria timama.
(2) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) guamensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-
thuria guamensis (Name No. 846);

(b) /ucifuga Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria
lucifuga (Name No. 847);

(d) Jutea Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria
lutea (Name No. 849);

(e) pentagona Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-
thuria pentagona (Name No. 850);

(f) fusca Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Fistularia
fusca (Name No. 851);

(g) timama Lesson, 1830, as published in the binomen Holothuria timama
(Name No. 852).
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) nobilis Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Muilleria nobilis
(Name No. 2112);

(b) moebii Ludwig, 1883, as published in the binomen Holothuria moebii
(Name No. 2113);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(d) variegatus Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Stichopus varie-
gatus (Name No. 2115);

(e) australis Ludwig, 1875, as published in the binomen Colochirus australis
(Name No. 2116);

(f) rufescens Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Polycheira rufescens
(Name No. 2117);

(g) aculeata Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Holothuria aculeata
(Name No. 2118);

(h) /eucospilota Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Stichopus leuco-
spilota (Name No. 2119);

(i) buccalis Stimpson, 1856, as published in the binomen Thyone buccalis
(Name No. 2120).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1587)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April
1963 by Miss Ailsa M. Clark. Miss Clark’s application was sent to the printer
on 7 May 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
20 : 383-387. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184).

The application was supported by Prof. E. Tortonese and, in part, by Dr.
E. Deichmann. Dr. Deichmann objected, however, to the suppression of
Stichopus leucospilota Brandt and Thyone buccalis Stimpson (Nos. 7 & 8 on
Miss Clark’s list). As a result of this objection Miss Clark wrote “... so as
not to prejudice the rejection of numbers 1-6 and 9 (which would upset
drastically the accustomed terminology and for which there is a good case), I
am prepared to concede that numbers 7 and 8 do not have a good case for
retention thanks to certain authors following H. L. Clark’s adoption of them.”

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 23 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)25 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 386-387 as amended in the note
accompanying the Voting Paper. In the said note Commissioners were in-
formed of Dr. Deichmann’s objection and Miss Clark’s reply and the proposals
were amended as follows:
** Delete 1(h) and 1(i); 2(h) and 2(i).
For 3(h) substitute: /eucospilota Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen
Stichopus leucospilota.
For 3(i) substitute: buccalis Stimpson, 1856, as published in the binomen
Thyone buccalis.”
At the close of the prescribed voting period on 23 November 1965 the state
of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature iF

Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Forest, Kraus,
Binder, Mertens, Ride,* Evans, Brinck, Bonnet.

Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): ‘‘ I oppose voting en bloc on lists of names
that are mixtures of situations and that appear unequal in justification. In
particular, I will not vote to suppress nomina dubia, and must vote against the
whole list.”

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (23.xi.65): “ I vote for the proposal to suppress, by means
of the plenary powers, the following names:

(1) Holothuria guamensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833

(3) H. albifasciata Quoy & Gaimard, 1833

(4) H. lutea Quoy & Gaimard, 1833.

In each case there is instability caused by doubt as to how the name is to be
applied, and no type specimens are known to exist. Stability is served better
here by suppression than by neotype designation.

‘**T do not agree to the use of the plenary powers to suppress the following:

(2) H. lucifuga Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. This name can be positively
identified through its type. It threatens to supplant another name in a taxon
which is without stable classificatory boundaries (application p. 384, para. 6)
and, moreover, one for which no case has been made for its conservation on
the grounds which are set out in the Code for the use of the plenary powers
(Arts. 23b(iii) and 79).

(5) H. pentagona Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. Again, there is no doubt as to
the application of this name. It threatens to replace a name which has an
unstable subjective synonymy. In fact, a shift of taxonomic philosophy once
more could well require the valid specific name of this taxon to become
doliolum Pallas, 1766 (as it was until 1942). No adequate case has been made
out for conservation of the threatened name C. australis Ludwig, 1875. Accord-
ing to the applicant, this name, soon after its description, was placed in
synonymy by its describer and left there until 1932. Since 1932 it has been
used by three authors.

(6) Fistularia fusca Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. This name can be identified
without doubt. It threatens to replace a name (rufescens Brandt, 1835) for
which the applicant makes no case for conservation beyond saying that it has
been ‘ widely used for additional material’ by three authors in the taxonomic
literature since 1881. The applicant makes no statement covering the in-
variability of usage of rufescens for the taxon which contains fusca, nor of
stability in its boundaries.

(9) H. timama Lesson, 1830. The identity of this name is not in doubt.
The applicant asks for the conservation of the threatened name H. aculeata
Semper, 1868, for which she records seven usages including its original descrip-
tion. No further material has been recorded since its description and it has

* An affirmative vote in part only. See note below.

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

not been used since 1934. On the other hand, timama, which we are asked to
suppress, has also seven usages (and one more, with doubt, in synonymy).
The most recent of these was in 1951 in which it was declared to be the senior
synonym of aculeata. 1 would regard the applicant’s statement as a clear
indication that aculeata does not warrant conservation over timama.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
aculeata, Holothuria, Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen 2 : 84-85
albifasciata, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe”, Zool.
4: 132
australis, Colochirus, Ludwig, 1875, Arb. zool.-zoot. Inst. Wiirzburg 2(2) : 12-13
buccalis, Thyone, Stimpson, 1856, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1854-1856 : 386
coluber, Holothuria, Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen : 2 : 90
fusca, Fistularia, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe ”’, Zool. 4 : 26
guamensis, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “Astrolabe ’’, Zool 4 : 137
leucospilota, Stichopus, Brandt, 1835, Prodr. Descr. Anim. Mertens. Orb. Terr.
Circumnay. obsery. : 251
lucifuga, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe”, Zool. 4 : 134
lutea, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe”, Zool. 4 : 140
moebii, Holothuria, Ludwig, 1883, Ber. oberhess. Ges. Nat.-u. Heilk. : 246
nobilis, Mulleria, Selenka, 1867, Z. wiss. Zool. 17 : 313
pentagona, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe’’, Zool.
4 2135
rufescens, Polycheira, Brandt, 1835, Prodr. Descr. Anim. Mertens. Orb. Terr.
Circumnay. obsery. : 59
timama, Holothuria, Lesson, 1830, Centurie zoologique, ou choix d’animaux rares,
nouveaux ou imparfaitement connus : 118
variegatus, Stichopus Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel de Philippinen 2 : 73

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)26 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 762.

G. OWEN EVANS WwW. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

20 January 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19

OPINION 763

STENORHYNCHUS LAMARCK, 1818 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA):
VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH DESIGNATION
OF CANCER SETICORNIS HERBST, 1788, AS TYPE-SPECIES

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the generic name Pactolus Leach, 1815, is hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy;

(b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Stenorhynchus
Lamarck, 1818, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside
and the nominal species Cancer seticornis Herbst, 1788, is hereby
designated to be the type-species of that genus;

(d) it is hereby directed that the family-group name INACHINAE McLeay,
1838, is not to be rejected in favour of the name MACROPODIINAE
Samouelle, 1819, by any zoologist who considers that the genera
Macropodia [Leach, 1814] and Inachus Weber, 1795, belong to the
same family-group taxon.

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) Inachus Weber, 1795 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation
by H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Cancer scorpio Fabricius, 1779 (Name
No. 1698);

(b) Macropodia [Leach, 1814] (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono-
typy, Cancer longirostris Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 1699);

(c) Stenorhynchus (emend. under the plenary powers of Stenorynchus)
Lamarck, 1818 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Cancer seticornis Herbst,
1788 (Name No. 1700).

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) debilis S. 1. Smith, 1871, as published in the binomen Leptopodia debilis
(Name No. 2121);

(b) dorsettensis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Cancer
dorsettensis (Name No. 2122);

(c) longirostris Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer longi-
rostris (type-species of Macropodia [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 2123).

(d) phalangium Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer
phalangium (Name No. 2124);

(e) rostratus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cancer rostratus
(Name No. 2125);

(f) seticornis Herbst, 1788, as published in the binomen Cancer seticornis
(type-species of Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818) (Name No. 2126).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :
(a) Macropus Latreille, [1802-1803] (a junior homonym of Macropus Shaw,
1790) (Name No. 1777);

(b) Pactolus Leach, 1815 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)
above) (Name No. 1778);

(c) Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(c)
above to be an incorrect original spelling for Stenorhynchus) (Name
No. 1779).

(5) The family-group name INACHINAE McLeay, 1838 (type-genus Jnachus
Weber, 1795) (under the plenary powers, a name to be given precedence over
the name MACROPODIINAE Samouelle, 1819, by any zoologist who considers
that Inachus Weber, 1795, and Macropodia [Leach, 1814], belong to the same
family-group taxon) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 400.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 751)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
John S. Garth and Dr. L. B. Holthuis in February 1953. This application was
revised in June 1963 and was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and published
on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 424-428. Public Notice of
the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same
part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Con-
stitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial.
No comments were received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)31 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 427-428. At the end of the
prescribed voting period on 25 November 1965 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order:
China, Holthuis, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe,
Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Ride, Forest,
Kraus, Binder, Mertens, Evans, Brinck, Bonnet.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Vokes, Sabrosky.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
debilis, Leptopodia, S. 1. Smith, 1871, Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1869/1870 (app.):
87
dorsettensis, Cancer, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4: 8
INACHINAE McLeay, 1838, J//ustr. Annul. S. Afr. : 56

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21

Inachus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 93

longirostris, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 408

Macropodia [Leach, 1814], Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 : 431

Macropus Latreille, [1802-1803], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic.
Crust. Ins. 3 : 27

Pactolus Leach, 1815, Zool. Miscell. 2 : 19

phalangium, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 408

rostratus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed. 2) : 493 ¥

seticornis, Cancer, Herbst, 1788, Vers, Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(7) : 229

Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 236

Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818, an invalid original spelling for Stenorhynchus q.v.

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species

for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:

For Inachus Weber, 1795: H. Milne Edwards, 1837, in Cuvier’s Régn. Anim.
(ed. 4) (Disciples’ ed.) 18 : pl. 34, fig. 2.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)31 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision
of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 763.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

26 January 1966

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 764

CHAETODERMA LOVEN, 1844 (MOLLUSCA), AND CHAETO DERMIS
SWAINSON, 1839 (PISCES): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF
GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The following specific names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) penicilligerus Cuvier, 1817, as published in the binomen Balistes
penicilligerus (type-species of Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839) (Name No.

2127);
(b) nitidulum Lovén, 1844, as published in the binomen Chaetoderma
nitidulum (type-species of Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844) (Name No. 2128).

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
designation by Bleeker, 1866, Balistes penicilligerus Cuvier, 1817
(Name No. 1701);

(b) Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy,
Chaetoderma nitidulum Lovén, 1844 (Name No. 1702).

(3) The family-group name CHAETODERMATIDAE (correction of CHAETO-
DERMATA) von Jhering, 1876 (type-genus Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 401.

(4) The specific name pennicilligerus Cuvier, 1817, as published in the
binomen Balistes pennicilligerus (an incorrect original spelling for penicilligerus
Cuvier, 1817) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 853.

(5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :
(a) Choetoderma Swainson, 1839 (an incorrect original spelling for Chaeto-
dermis Swainson, 1839) (Name No. 1780);

(b) Chaetoderma Swainson, 1839 (an incorrect original spelling for Chaeto-
dermis Swainson, 1839) (Name No. 1781);

(d) Chaetoderma Moser, 1907 (a junior homonym of Chaetoderma Loven,
1844) (Name No. 1783);

(e) Crystallophrysson Graff, 1875 (an incorrect spelling for Crystallophrisson
Mobius, 1875) (Name No. 1784);

(f) Chrystallophrysson Wirén, 1892 (an incorrect spelling for Crystallo-
phrisson Mobius, 1875) (Name No. 1785);

(g) Chrystallophrisson Liitken, 1877 (an incorrect spelling for Crystallo-
phrisson Mobius, 1875) (Name No. 1786).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1250)

The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Henning Lemche in 1957. In February 1963 a new application on the same
subject was independently submitted by Mr. David Heppell. Dr. Lemche
supported the latter and agreed that it should replace his own. Consequently
Mr. Heppell’s application was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and was
published on 6 November 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 429-431. The
application was supported by Dr. Myra Keen.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)32 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 430-431. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis,
Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Tortonese, Sabrosky*, Alvarado, Boschma,
Binder, Jaczewski, Evans.

Negative votes—None (0).

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Prof. G. G. Simpson (14.x.65): ‘‘ On the showing of the proposal the recom-
mended action is in accord both with strict application of the Code and with
current usage. There appears to be no question either as to the result of
applying the Code or as to usage, the only issue before the Commission being
whether or not to place certain names on various Official Lists. Two matters
of principle should, I think, be considered by the Commission, the Congress,
or both:

“1. Whether the expenses of publication, circularization and commis-
sioners’ time are justified when in fact there is no moot point.

“2. What, in fact, are the function and force of the Official Lists. The
only bare hint in the Code itself is in 78(f), which strikes me as completely
baffling.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “* I vote in the affirmative except for para. (5),
which is an unnecessary Ruling.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 1 : 116
Chaetoderma Moser, 1907, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 51 : 319
Chaetoderma Swainson, 1839, an incorrect original spelling for Chaetodermis q.v.

* An affirmative vote in part only. See note below.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CHAETODERMATIDAE von Jhering, 1876, Jb. dtsch. malakol. Ges. Jahrg. 3 : 137

Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839, The Natural History of Fishes, Amphibians &
Reptiles, or monocardian animals, 2 : 194, 327, 441

Chetoderma Kowalevsky & Marion, 1887, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Marseille 3,
Mém. 1: 8

Choetoderma Swainson, 1839, an incorrect original spelling for Chaetodermis q.v.

Chrystallophrisson Liitken, 1877, Zool. Record 12 (for 1875) Vermes : 543

Chrystallophrysson Wirén, 1892, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 23(12)

Crystallophrysson Graff, 1875, Z. wiss. Zool. 26 : 188

nitidulum, Chaetoderma, Lovén, 1844, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad.
Férhandl. 1 : 116

penicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817, Le Régne Animal 4 : 185, pl. 9, fig. 3

pennicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817, an incorrect original spelling for peni-
cilligerus q.v.
The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species

for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:

For Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 : Bleeker, 1866, Ned. Tijdschr. Dierk. 3 :
12, 26

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)32 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 764.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

27 January 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

OPINION 765

CHAPMANINA SILVESTRI, 1931 (FORAMINIFERA): DESIGNATION
OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species
for the nominal genus Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931, made prior to the present
Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Chapmania gassinensis
Silvestri, 1905, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus.

(2) The generic name Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931 (gender : feminine), type-
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chapmania
Sassinensis Silvestri, 1905, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology with the Name Number 1703.

(3) The specific name gassinensis Silvestri, 1905, as published in the binomen
Chapmania gassinensis (type-species of Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2129.

(4) The generic name Chapmania Silvestri & Prever, 1904 (a junior homonym
of Chapmania Monticelli, 1893) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1787.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1402)

The present application was presented to the office of the Commission in
March 1959 by Dr. Don L. Frizzell. Dr. Frizzell’s application was sent to the
printer on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 20 : 432-434. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as
to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials. The application was
supported by Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr., and Dr. Helen Tappan.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)33 either for or against the
Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 433. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis,
Jaczewski, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Alvarado,
Boschma, Binder, Evans.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

The following comment was made by Mr. C. W. Sabrosky in returning his
vote: “* However, I would prefer that part (1) note that the genus was monobasic
but the monotype was misidentified, as aegyptiensis Chapman, and that the
Commission now rules that the type is the species actually before the authors
Silvestri & Prever, i.e., gassinensis Silvestri. ”

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Chapmania Silvestri & Prever, 1904, in Silvestri, Riv. ital. Sci. nat., Boll. Nat.
24(12) : 117-119, text-figs. 1-3
Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931, Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. 50 : 63-73, pl. 1
gassinensis, Chapmania, Silvestri, 1905, Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. 23, 1904(1905) :
481-482, 485 footnote 2

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)33 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision
of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 765.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

28 January 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27

OPINION 766

NAIADITES ELONGATUS DAWSON, 1861 (LAMELLIBRANCHIA):
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name elongatus
Dawson, 1860, as published in the binomen Naiadites elongatus, is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy.

(2) The specific name elongatus Dawson, 1860, as published in the binomen
Naiadites elongatus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above)
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology with the Name Number 854.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1604)

The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Mrs.
M. J. Rogers in June 1963. Mrs. Rogers’ application was sent to the printer
on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
20 : 440-442. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials. The proposals were supported
by Dr. John Weir.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)35 either for or against the
Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 442. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida,
Jaczewski, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma, Binder,
Evans.

Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Ride, Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (8.xi.65): “‘ It seems more sensible to me to select the
specimen No. 2,1167 of the Redpath Museum, which is labelled as ‘ co-type °
of Naiadites elongatus to become its lectotype. The name elongatus Dawson,
1860, then would become a junior synonym of phillipsii Williamson, 1836. In
this way the object of eliminating the name would be reached without inter-
ference by the Commission.”

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (1.xii.65): “The applicant presents no evidence that
stability or universality are threatened by the continued availability of the
name Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1860. She states that N. elongatus is a

ee
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

nomen dubium; but she also demonstrates that the application of the normal
provisions of the Code will cause her to allocate it to the taxon Anthraconauta
Phillipsii (Williamson, 1836) of which it will become a junior subjective synonym.
Accordingly, I do not agree that the use of the plenary powers is warranted here.

‘** In the absence of a statement to the contrary, N. elongatus Dawson, 1860,
was described from more than one specimen since two localities were included
in the original statement. At least one of the syntypes was later transferred by
the author to another species (A. mytiloides Dawson, 1894). No evidence is
presented that the various specimens (mentioned in the application) which later
formed the basis of figures by Dawson and others (and which would now be
attributed to various other taxa), are syntypical, except for Redpath Museum
Specimen No. 2,1167. This specimen is stated by Dawson’s assistant to be
from the type locality, and a ‘co-type’ of Anthracomya elongata (Dawson).
On this authority it is the only undoubted syntype available for lectotype selec-
tion.

** Such action would cause the applicant to place N. elongatus Dawson, 1860,
within A. phillipsii (Williamson, 1836).”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “‘ 1 am opposed in principle to Commission
action on nomina dubia.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official
Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
elongatus, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860, Supplement to “‘ Acadian Geology” : 44

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)35 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision
of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 766.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

28 January 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29

OPINION 767

SERPULA LINNAEUS, 1758 (ANNELIDA, POLYCHAETA):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Serpu/a Linnaeus,
1758, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the
nominal species Serpula vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby desig-
nated to be the type-species of that genus;

(b) the specific name tubusvermicularis Bergius, 1765, as published in the
binomen Teredo tubusvermicularis, is hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy.

(2) The family-group name SERPULIDAE (correction of SERPULEES) Lamarck,
1818 (type-genus Serpula Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 402.

(3) The generic name Serpula Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine), type-
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Serpula
vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1704.

(4) The specific name vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the
binomen Serpula vermicularis (type-species of Serpula Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2130.

(5) The specific name tubusvermicularis Bergius, 1765, as published in the
binomen Teredo tubusyermicularis (as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1)(b) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 855.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1606)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr.
David Heppell in June 1963. Mr. Heppell’s application was sent to the printer
on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
20 : 443-446. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184). The application was supported by Dr. Myra Keen, Dr. Gesa
Hartmann-Schréder and Dr. Barbara Drew.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)36 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 445-446. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis,
Jaczewski, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Alvarado,
Boschma, Binder, Evans

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Serpula Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 786-788
SERPULIDAE Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 357
tubusvermicularis, Teredo, Bergius, 1765, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Hand.

26 : 229

vermicularis, Serpula, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1267

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)36 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 767.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

1 February 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31

OPINION 768

COENONYMPHA OCHRACEA EDWARDS, 1861 (INSECTA,
LEPIDOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type-material for the nominal
species Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861, is hereby set aside and the
specimen described by F. M. Brown, 1963, is hereby designated to be the
neotype of that species.

(2) The specific name ochracea Edwards, 1861, as published in the binomen
Coenonympha ochracea, as interpreted under the plenary powers by the neotype
designated by F. M. Brown, 1963, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2131.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1607)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr.
F. Martin Brown in July 1963. Mr. Brown’s paper was sent to the printer on
17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
20 : 447-448. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. The proposals were supported
by Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 351) and Dr. J. W. Tilden.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)37 either for or against the
proposals published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 448. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchey, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis,
Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Tortonese, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Boschma,
Binder, Evans.

Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. H. Lemche (11.x.65): “1 vote for the proposals and for the proposal
(dos Passos) of setting aside any lectotype-selection of the extant Winnipeg
specimen in the past or in the future. (A necessary step before any neotype
selection can be validated.) ”’

Prof. Ernst Mayr (18.x.65): “‘ The application contains the misleading state-
ment that inornata has line priority over ochracea. This is not correct, since
line precedence does not give priority.”

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (1.xii.65): “ I agree that it would be desirable to add * to
use the plenary powers to set aside all type material of C. ochracea Edwards,
1861.’.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “‘ No evidence is given that the name is of
sufficient importance to justify plenary action. Indeed, three recent works
are cited (Chermock and Chermock, 1938, 1963, and Burdick, 1956) in which
active lepidopterists had no difficulty in changing the application of the name
ochracea.

“If there is extant a recognizable syntype, and this has been duly selected
as lectotype (Chermock & Chermock, 1963, according to dos Passos’ com-
ment), that selection should be recognized.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCE

The following is the original reference for the specific name placed on the
Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
ochracea, Coenonympha, Edwards, 1861, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 13 : 163

The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype
for the species concerned in the present Ruling:
For Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861 : F. M. Brown, 1963, Bull. zool.

Nomencl. 20 : 448.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)37 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 768.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

1 February 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33

OPINION 769

YOLDIA MOLLER, 1842, AND PORTLANDIA MORCH, 1857:
DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Portlandia Mérch,
1857, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the
nominal species Nucula arctica Gray, 1824, is hereby designated to
be the type-species of that genus;

(b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Yo/dia Méller,
1842, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the
nominal species Yoldia hyperborea Torell, 1859, is hereby designated
to be the type-species of that genus.

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) Portlandia Morch, 1857 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Nucula arctica Gray, 1824
(Name No. 1705);

(b) Yoldia MGller, 1842 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Yoldia hyperborea Torell,
1859 (Name No. 1706).

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) arctica Gray, 1824, as published in the binomen Nucula arctica (type-
species of Portlandia Mérch, 1857) (Name No. 2132);

(b) hyperborea Torell, 1859, as published in the binomen Yoldia hyperborea
(type-species of Yoldia Moller, 1842) (Name No. 2133).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1522)

The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by
Dr. T. Soot-Ryen in November 1963, after some preliminary correspondence
on the case. Dr. Soot-Ryen’s application was sent to the printer on 17 Decem-
ber 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21:
127-129. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed
serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and
to two specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. A. H. Clark,
Jr. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 326), Mr. David Heppell and Dr. Irene Lubinsky
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 15-16).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)38 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 128-129. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis,
Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma,
Binder, Jaczewski, Evans.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

The following comment was made by Commissioner Dr. L. B. Holthuis in
returning his vote: “I vote in the affirmative except for para. 8 (4). It is clear
that arctica Mdller, 1842, is not a new name, but a citation of arctica Gray,
1824, even though it is incorrectly applied to Yoldia hyperborea. The non-
existent name arctica MOller, 1842, therefore cannot be placed on the Official
Index.”

The Secretary is in agreement with Dr. Holthuis that Nucula arctica Moller
has no separate status from Nucula arctica Gray, and the former name has
therefore not been placed on the Official Index.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
arctica, Nucula, J. E. Gray, 1824, Suppl. App. Parry’s Voy. N.W. Passage : 241
hyperborea, Yoldia, Torell, 1859, Bidrag till Spitsbergens molluskfauna : 145-152
Portlandia Mérch, 1857, in Rink, Grénl. geogr. statistisk beskrevet 2(4) : 93
Yoldia MOller, 1842, Index Moll. Groenl. : 18

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)38 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 769.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

1 February 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35

OPINION 770

STENOSCISMA CONRAD, 1839 (BRACHIOPODA): ADDED TO THE
OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :
(a) Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy,
Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch, [1834] (Name No. 1707);
(b) Machaeraria Cooper, 1955 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original
designation, Rhynchonella formosa Hall, 1857 (Name No. 1708).

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :
(a) schlotheimii von Buch, [1834], as published in the binomen Terebratula
schlotheimii (type-species of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No.
2134);
(b) formosa Hall, 1857, as published in the binomen Rhychonella formosa
(type-species of Machaeraria Cooper, 1955) (Name No. 2135).

(3) The family-group name sTENOSCISMATINAE (correction of STENOSCHIS-
MATINAE) Oehlert, 1887 (type-genus Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) is hereby placed
on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number
403.

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :
(a) Stenocisma Hall, 1847 (an incorrect spelling for Stenoscisma Conrad,
1839) (Name No. 1788);

(b) Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887 (an unjustified emendation of Stenoscisma
Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 1789);

(d) Camerophoria King, 1846 (a junior objective synonym of Stenoscisma
Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 1791);

(e) Camarophoria Herrmannsen, 1846 (an incorrect spelling for Camero-
Phoria King, 1846) (Name No. 1792).

(5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the
Name Numbers specified:

(a) CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883 (type-genus Camerophoria King, 1846)
(rejected before 1961 because the name of the type-genus is a junior
objective synonym of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 420);

(b) STENOSCHISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887 (type-genus Stenoscisma Conrad,
1839) (an incorrect original spelling for STENOSCISMATINAE) (Name
No. 421).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1539)

The present case was first brought to the attention of the office of the
Commission by Mr. Alan Logan, who expressed the intention of submitting
proposals to the Commission. Before Mr. Logan’s application was completed,
an application on the same subject was received from Dr. Herta Schmidt.
Dr. Schmidt’s application was sent to the printer on 17 December 1963, and
was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 130-132. Public
Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given
in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publica-
tions (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184).

A note of support by Dr. Richard E. Grant was published in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 419 and an objection by Dr. Paul Sartenaer (ibid. 22 : 13).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote on
Voting Paper (65)39 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 131-132. At the close of the prescribed voting period on
3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Simpson, Mayr, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Forest, Bonnet, Ride,*
Sabrosky,* Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma, Evans.

Negative votes—five (5): do Amaral, Obruchey, Brinck, Binder, Jaczewski.

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.

Commissioner Prof. H. E. Vokes declined to vote, making the following
comment: “I must agree with P. Sartenaer that no action by the Commission
is required to maintain present nomenclatorial practice and to ‘ conserve the
generic name Stenoscisma Conrad in its present usage’. Hence I do not
wish to vote on this application.”

In returning their votes, other Commissioners commented as follows:

Prof. G. G. Simpson (14.x.65): “‘ The argument that it is not necessary to
place names on the Official List is not impelling. Any name can come under
attack, and this is the best available safeguard.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “‘ | have great sympathy with the objections
of Sartenaer. The Official Indexes can become bulging rag bags from un-
necessary Rulings.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Camarophoria Herrmannsen, 1846, Indicis Gen. Malacoz. : 161
Camerophoria King, 1846, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 18 : 89-91
CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883, Palaeont. Indica (13) 1 (1-5) : 435
formosa, Rhynchonella, Hall, 1857, Tenth ann. Rept. New York State Cab. nat.
Hist. : 76
Machaeraria Cooper, 1955, J. Paleont. 29 (1) : 55

* Affirmative votes in favour of proposals (1)-(3) only.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37

schlotheimii, Terebratula, von Buch, [1834], Abh. K.-preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin
1833 : 59

Stenochisma Schuchert, 1897, Bull. U.S. geol. Surv. 87 : 413

Stenocisma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York, Paleont. 1 : 142

Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887, in Fischer, Manuel Conchyl. : 1309

STENOSCHISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887, an incorrect original spelling for STENOSCIS-
MATINAE q.v.

Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839, Second ann. Rept. New York geol. Sury. : 59

STENOSCISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887, in Fischer, Manuel Conchyl. : 1304

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)39 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 770.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

2 February 1966

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 771

THAMNOPHIS SIRTALIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (REPTILIA): REJECTION
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NEOTYPE SPECIMEN
DESIGNATED FOR THAT SPECIES BY OPINION 385

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers that part of the amendment to
Opinion 385 designating an erroneous type-locality (Quebec, Quebec County,
Province of Quebec, Canada) and the neotype selected from that locality
(Chicago Natural History Museum No. 73660) as the basis for the interpretation
of Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby set aside.

(2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that Coluber sirtalis
Linnaeus, 1758, is to be interpreted from the description and type-locality given
for Coluber sirtalis by Richard Harlan, 1827, in Genera of North American
Reptilia and a Synopsis of the Species. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 352.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1600)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Francis R. Cook in April 1963. Dr. Cook’s application was sent to the printer
on 7 May 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
20 : 397-400. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials.

The proposal was supported by Dr. A. B. Grobman and opposed by
Prof. Hobart M. Smith and Prof. Ernst Mayr (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 189).
As a result of objections, and after lengthy correspondence with Dr. Carl L.
Hubbs and Dr. L. M. Klauber, Dr. Cook submitted a revised proposal published
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 327-328. This proposal was supported by Prof.
J. S. Bleakney and Dr. Douglas A. Rossman whose comments were circulated
to the Commission with the Voting Paper.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 23 August 1965 the members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)30 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 328. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 23 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Munroe, Lemche, ‘do Amaral,
Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Forest, Kraus,
Mertens, Brinck, Bonnet.

Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Ride, Binder.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Prof. G. G. Simpson (20.ix.65): “ It seems that the revised proposal by Cook
is most likely to stabilize nomenclature, and it is voted for on that basis. Refer-

See es se ee ee ee eee
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39

ence to type-locality is objectionable, but it follows by redundancy from
reference to Harlan’s use of the name and is therefore not basis for rejecting the
proposal.

“In Opinion 385 the Commission made fools of themselves by solemnly
and official designating as type-locality a place where the intended species does
not in fact occur. The Commission is empowered to deal with nomenclature
only, and any tendency to pontificate on other zoological matters should be
resisted by the Commission and rejected by other zoologists. Designation of a
type-locality may come into question as it bears on nomenclature, but it is not
itself a nomenclatural matter or within the duties or competence of the Com-
mission. Recommendation (not Article) 72E (whether wise or not) does not
bring designation of type-localities into the scope of the Commission any more
than, for example 72B, makes the Commission a supervising and administrative
corps for museum labels.”

Dr. Henning Lemche (11.x.65): “‘ I vote in the affirmative with the exception
that | am against the establishment of any type-locality whatsoever.

‘““ The case has demonstrated clearly that type alone must define species.
As stated by the Zoological Congress (and not just the Commission as such) in
the Recommendation 72E of the Code (1962) ‘ If a type-locality was erroneously
designated it should be corrected.’ (Nothing indicates that such correction is
the duty of the Commission).”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): ‘“‘ May I note that Dr. Cook has twice
misquoted the Code (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 399, para. 13; and 21 : 328,
para. 6). Recommendation 72E, being only a recommendation and not a rule,
reads * should be corrected ’, not ‘ shall be ’.”’

Dr. W. D. L. Ride (19.xi.65): “‘ In this case the Commission has ruled that
the name Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted by reference to a
neotype No. 73660 in the Chicago Natural History Museum. The specimen
was collected at Quebec [City] and this is its type-locality.

“A type-locality is a property of a type—the two are not separate issues
which can be decided by rule. Thus, the Code makes provision for the restric-
tion of types (through lectotype selection, Art. 74) or for the selection of new
types (through neotype selection, Art. 75) but it makes no separate provision for
the restriction of type-localities beyond those which are inherent in the restriction
and selection of types. The statement contained in Recommendation 72E
makes it clear that the final arbiter as to whether any previous restriction holds
true, is whether or not the type specimen was collected at that locality.

“* It therefore follows that arguments as to whether the original type-specimen
of C. sirtalis Linnaeus was collected at Quebec, or not, are completely immaterial
to the case. There is no argument that the neotype was collected there and it is
difficult to understand why a valid neotype designation should be set aside
because, in 1959, Bleakney took the unusual step of calling the nominate
subspecies of sirtalis by another subspecific name (i.e. pa/lidula Allan, 1899).

“Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 190) makes the statement that the names
of this species have not been especially stable during the last 20 years, and I am
unable to vote for this proposal to set aside a neotype appointed and listed by
the Commission because I believe that the purposes for which the Commission

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is empowered to use the plenary powers would be ill-served by it. Unless we
have stability in the Code, in the availability of Listed names, and in the types
through which they are to be interpreted, we cannot hope to achieve stability in
nomenclature.”

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)30 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 771.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

10 February 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41

OPINION 772

CURIMATA WALBAUM, 1792 (PISCES): REJECTED AS A GENERIC
NAME AND PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy:

(a) curimata Walbaum, 1792, as published in the binomen Salmo curimata;

(b) immaculatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Salmo immacu-

latus.
(2) Under the plenary powers, insofar as is necessary, all designations of
type-species for the nominal genus Curimata Bosc, 1817, are hereby set aside,
and the nominal species Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794, is hereby designated to be
the type-species of that genus.
(3) It is hereby Ruled that the name Curimata, used by Walbaum, 1792, in
the binomen Salmo (Curimata) Marggravii, is a specific name and the word
Marggravii (= marcgravi) does not form part of a combination of scientific
names.
(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :
(a) Curimata Bosc, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (2) above, Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794
(Name No. 1709);

(b) Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designa-
tion by Eigenmann, 1910, Prochilodus argenteus Agassiz, 1829 (Name
No. 1710).
(4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :
(a) edentulus Bloch, 1794, as published in the binomen Salmo edentulus
(type-species of Curimata Bosc, 1817) (Name No. 2136);

(b) argenteus Agassiz, 1829, as published in the binomen Prochilodus
argenteus (type-species of Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829) (Name No.
ZL):
(5) The name Curimata Walbaum, 1792 (published in the binomen Salmo
(Curimata) Marggravii as a specific name, but mistakenly considered by some
authors to be a generic name) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1793.
(6) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :
(a) curimata Walbaum, 1792, as published in the binomen Salmo Curimata
(as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No.
856);

(b) immaculatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Salmo immacu-
latus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name
No. 857);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(c) Marggravii (= marcgravi) [Walbaum, 1792], as published in the combi-
nation Salmo (Curimata) Marggravii (a cheironym) (Name No. 858).

(7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List

of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) CURIMATINAE Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889 (type-genus Curimata
Bosc, 1817) (Name No. 404);

(b) PROCHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910 (type-genus Prochilodus Agassiz,
1829) (Name No. 405).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1590)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J.
Gery in January 1963. Dr. Gery’s application was sent to the printer on 31
January 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
20 : 390-394. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to one specialist serial. A comment giving additional information
and, in part, expressing an objection was received from Dr. W. R. Taylor and
was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 260.

In answer to Dr. Taylor’s criticism, Dr. Gery wrote as follows:

“(a) 1am glad that you do not object a priori to the rejection of Walbaum:
this is the most important question. The basic discussion is indeed not in (1) of
my application, but in (2). The question is: apart from purely nomenclatural
problems, shall we adopt Curimata sens. Marcgrave (Walbaum) or Curimata
sens. Cuvier. Curimata Walbaum is what we now call Prochilodus, and what
we put into a separate sub-family. Indeed, in the 18th century, the group would
have comprised also what we now call Curimatins, as is still the case among
the Indians. Then came Cuvier who restricted Curimata to the edentulous
forms making an error in identification (this is a rough schema on my part).
Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1889) and Eigenmann (1910) ratified it, and correctly
designated what Cuvier believed to be his Curimata.

“In the meantime Prochilodus had been already established, again on
Curimata Walbaum (and, as you already know, a third genus could also be
involved, Hemiodus, even as early as in Bloch’s time).

“This is why, to prevent such a mix-up, I believe that every good reason to
invalidate Walbaum must come into action. If this is not done, see what could
happen by reference, for example, to Fowler’s Peixes do Brazil (written eventually
with a cross-card-index): Prochilodus Agass. has its type marggravi Walbaum,
and Curimata Walbaum has edentulus Bloch as type!

“*(b) I do not agree with you concerning the danger of jeopardizing group-
names in using Curimatus Oken ex Cuvier: there is no danger at all provided
that its type was designated. This was done by Eigenmann & Eigenmann 1889
and it is a definitive act, following the rule of the first reviewer. Certainly,
one may argue that E. & E. did not cite Oken, but ‘ Les Curimates ’ Cuvier.
Anyhow, in 1910, Eigenmann clearly cited Curimatus Oken with type-designa-
tion, and without error in identification of the type-species (I use ‘ error ’ in the
Rule’s sense: in fact, nobody knows if edentulus is really cyprinoides, but this is

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43

another story, a non-nomenclatural one, involving the study of the complicated
Artenkreis cyprinoides-schomburgki).

““(c) I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that primo: Curimata sens.
Walbaum is untenable; secundo: Curimata sens. Cuvier does not break the
continuity of the nomenclature.

“ Thus, I agree with you that Curimata Bosc ex Cuvier can be chosen instead
of Curimatus Oken ex Cuvier, if (1) it can be demonstrated that it has indeed
priority over Oken; (2) The Commission revalorize this nomen oblitum; (3) it is
based on the same species as that of Cuvier (Oken), as designated by Eigenmann
1910—this is very probable, on clear indication.

** (d) Finally all subsequent names, of Cloquet and others, are not consistent
with the case, if an earlier genus is available, that is with correct type-designation.
As it was the case, I did not mention them.”

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 23 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)28 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 393-394, as amended in the
accompanying Secretary’s Note. The Note which accompanied Voting Paper
(65)28 first set out Dr. Gery’s letter in answer to Dr. Taylor (see above) and
then continued as follows:

“In summary, Curimatus Oken cannot be placed on the Official List, as
requested, because it is a nomen nudum. It seems best, therefore, to replace
this by Curimata Bosc. This genus appears never to have been credited to
Bosc, or had species referred to it, and it is doubtful whether it has a legal type-
species. As a safeguard, however, it is suggested that the Commission should
use the plenary powers, insofar as is necessary, to fix Salmo edentulus as type of
Curimata Bosc. The proposals should, then, be amended as follows:

** Add (1) (c) to use the plenary powers, insofar as is necessary, to set aside all
designations of type-species for the nominal genus Curimata Bosc, 1817,
and, having done so, to designate Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794, to be
the type-species of that genus.

** Replace (3) (a) as follows:

Curimata Bosc, 1817 (Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 9 : 9)
(gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary
powers, Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794.

** Replace in (4) (a) ‘ Curimatus Oken’ by ‘ Curimata Bosc. ’.””

At the close of the prescribed voting period on 23 November 1965 the state

of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Munroe, Lemche,
do Amaral, Stoll, Mayr, Boschma, Ride, Sabrosky,* Jaczewski, Forest, Kraus,
Binder, Mertens, Evans, Bonnet.

Negative votes—three (3): Tortonese, Uchida, Brinck.

Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.

* An affirmative vote in part only (see comment below)

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (31.viii.65): “ In my opinion curimata Walbaum is clearly
a specific name and not a subgeneric one.

‘ The suppression asked for in par. (1) (b) of immaculatus Linnaeus, 1766, is
evidently an error for immaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 312),
published in the combination Salmo immaculatus.

‘* At first I was worried about the name Marcgravii Donndorff, 1798; if that
is an available name, it would preoccupy argenteus Agassiz, 1829. But my
colleague Boeseman showed me that Donndorff copied Walbaum and that his
Marcgravii is not a specific name either.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): “‘ I have critically studied Walbaum (1792)
and agree with the conclusion of Gery that Curimata is a specific name.

“I do not approve (1) (b) of the application because I strongly object in
principle to Commission action on nomina dubia. More important, I wish to
call attention to the fact that Salmo immaculatus Linné of the 12th edition, for
which suppression is required, is not new there but is merely a later use of
Salmo immaculatus Linné of 1758, 10th edition, p. 312.

‘A minor note: The ‘ emendation’ Marcgravii appeared first in the same
work by Walbaum, on page 660. Perhaps Marggravii on p. 80 was only a
typographical error.”

Dr. Gery’s error in attributing the specific name Salmo immaculatus to
Linnaeus, 1766, instead of to Linnaeus, 1758, has been corrected in the present
Ruling.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
argenteus, Prochilodus, J. L. R. Agassiz, 1829, Sel. Gen. Spec. Pisc. Brasil.: 63,
pl. 38
Curimata Bosc, 1817, Nouv. Dict. d’ Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 9 : 9
Curimata Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Genera Piscium, Ichth. (ed. 2) 3 : 80
curimata, Salmo, Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Genera Piscium, Ichth. (ed. 2) 3 : 80
CURIMATINAE Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 4: 409
edentulus, Salmo, Bloch, 1794, Naturgesch. Ausl. Fische 8 : pl. 380
immaculatus, Salmo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 312
marggravii, Salmo (Curimata), Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Genera Piscium, Ichth.
(ed. 2) 3: 80
PROCHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910, Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patag. 3 (4) : 424
Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829, Sel. Gen. Spec. Pisc. Brasil.: 62

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829 : Eigenmann, 1910, Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped.
Patag. 3 (4) : 424

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)28 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No.
Ti.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

14 February 1966

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TRYPETESINAE AND TRYPETESINI (LACORDAIRE): PROPOSED
EMENDATION OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1733

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) and
Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii)

Confusion exists when two family-group names are identical, although the
respective type-genera differ in spelling. In the present case, TRYPETINAE and
TRYPETINI in the coleopterous family CURCULIONIDAE conflict with identical but
older names in the dipterous family TEPHRITIDAE (TRYPETIDAE).

2. In 1866 (Génera des Coléoptéres, in Histoire Naturelle des Insectes
7: 177), Lacordaire erected the coleopterous “ Tribu” Trypétides, based on
the genus Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836. The names in Diptera, based on Trypeta
Meigen, 1803, date from the use of TRYPETIDAE by Loew (1861, Ueber die
Dipteren-Fauna des Bernsteins, Bericht 35. Vers. deutsch. Naturf. 1860 (1861) :
89). Some dipterists use TRYPETIDAE and TRYPETINAE, and others use the older
family name TEPHRITIDAE with TRYPETINAE still as a valid subfamily, but this
difference in usage is irrelevant to the present simple problem in the Coleoptera.

3. The suprageneric names in Lacordaire (1866) are in French vernacular
(Dérélomides, Hypérides, Gymnétrides, Lémosacides, Trypétides, Ulocérides,
etc.). However, the name with which we are concerned, and others in
Lacordaire’s work, can be maintained as available from that date and author-
ship under the provisions of Article Ile (ili) of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature (1961).

4. Because TRYPETINAE (Lacordaire) is a homonym of TRYPETINAE Loew, it
must be changed. To avoid further confusion and at the same time to preserve
the well-established coleopterous generic name Trypetes Schoenherr in supra-
generic categories, we believe that the spellings TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI
would be useful and distinctive. The procedure of using the complete name as
the stem in forming the group name has precedent in the case of Merops-
MEROPIDAE versus Merope-MEROPIDAE, in which the Commission approved the
family name MEROPEIDAE for the latter (Opinion 140, 1943).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
requested to use its plenary powers, where necessary:

(1) to direct that the stem of Trypetes Schoenherr consist of the entire generic

name, Trypetes-, in forming names of the family-group;

(2) to place the subfamily and tribal names TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI
(Lacordaire, 1866, as Trypétides) on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology:

(3) to place the generic name Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836, Genera et species
Curculionidum . . . 3 (2) : 595 (gender : masculine) (type-species, Try-
petes rhinoides Gyllenhal, by original designation) on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology; and

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47

(4) to place the specific name rhinoides Gyllenhal, in Schoenherr, 1836 : 596,
as published in the binomen Trypetes rhinoides Gyllenhal (type-
species of 7rypetes Schoenherr) on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PODALONIA SPINOLA, 1853 (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER PLENARY POWERS IN
FAVOUR OF PODALONIA FERNALD, 1927, WITH AMMOPHILA
VIOLACEIPENNIS LEPELETIER, 1845, AS TYPE SPECIES.! Z.N.(S.) 1735

By A. S. Menke, R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California,
U.S.A.) and J. van der Vecht (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden,
Holland)

1. The aim of this application is to request the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to ensure that continued
usage of the well established generic name Podalonia Spinola, 1853, sensu
Fernald (1927) will not be endangered. Continued use of the name is
threatened because it appears certain that the type species, Ammophila bocandei
Spinola, 1853, has been mistakenly interpreted as being congeneric with the
species usually placed under the genus Podalonia by modern workers.

History of the name Podalonia

2. Ina paper primarily devoted to describing new species of wasps from
Para, Brazil, Spinola (1853, pp. 52-53) presented a short discourse on the
merits of basing new genera on peculiarities of wing venation, a practice of
which he plainly disapproved. To demonstrate how easily (and unwisely) a
person could establish a new genus for a species with aberrant wing venation,
he described a new wasp species from “* Guinée ”’, Africa, which had a petiolate
second marginal cell. Spinola interpreted this species, bocandei, as a member
of the genus Ammophila Kirby, 1798, a taxon in which the second submarginal
cell is normally four sided. After the description of Ammophila bocandei,
Spinola returned to his discourse on the describing of new genera for species
that had peculiar wing venation by stating that he could just as easily propose
the generic name Podalonia for bocandei.

3. It is obvious that Spinola did not intend the name Podalonia to be
accepted as a valid generic name since he was only using it as an example to
demonstrate the undesirability of naming genera solely for species with different
wing venation. Nevertheless, under the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature Spinola’s name is valid even though conditionally proposed
(Art. 17(8)). The problem then is to determine the identity of the type species,
bocandei.

4. F. F. Kohl (1890, pp. 101-102), the greatest authority on the subfamily
Sphecinae, was the first person to deal with Spinola’s genus, but he did not
attempt to identify it. He merely listed Podalonia as belonging to the sub-
family Sphecinae and related it to Ammophila Kirby, 1798, sensu lato, without
mentioning bocandei. Later in his monumental work on the genera of the
Sphecidae, Kohl (1896, pp. 242, 308) listed Podalonia as a synonym of Ammophila
in the broad sense without any discussion of his reasons for doing so. It
should be pointed out that Kohl’s interpretation of Ammophila was very con-

ee ee es ee ee ee a ee eee ee ee
1 Research supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation GB-3074.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49

servative, and today up to six genera are recognized for the species Kohl
lumped under the name Ammophila.

5. In his revision of the Palearctic Ammophila s. 1. Kohl (1906, pp.
240-241) divided Ammophila into two “ Hauptartengruppe”’, Ammophila
Kirby, 1798, and Psammophila Dahlbom, 1842. He tentatively identified
bocandei Spinola as a Psammophila with aberrant wing venation but stated
that the species was unknown to him.

6. The only other author to deal with Podalonia during this period was
Dalla Torre. In his Catalogus Hymenopterorum, vol. 8, 1897, which deals with
the Sphecidae, Dalla Torre listed (p. 396) bocandei as a species of Ammophila
in the broad sense of Kohl. The only noteworthy item in connection with
this citation is that the species was erroneously listed as occurring in ‘‘ Am.:
Brasilia” instead of the type locality given by Spinola: ‘‘ Guinée ’’, Africa.
It is probable that this error caused all subsequent European taxonomists to
ignore bocandei completely. Note for example, that bocandei is not listed in
Leclercq’s (1955) catalog of the Sphecinae of Africa.

7. In 1927 H. T. Fernald published a revision of the North American
species of a genus of wasps which up to that time had been placed under the
generic name Psammophila Dahlbom, 1842, a taxon which it will be remembered
was considered as a “ Hauptartengruppe” of Ammophila by Kohl. Fernald
was the first author to note that Psammophila Dahlbom was a junior homonym
of Psammophila Brown, 1827, a genus of Mollusca. The only available replace-
ment name for Dahlbom’s preoccupied name was Podalonia Spinola, which
Fernald used with some misgivings, pointing out the conditional nature of
Spinola’s name. Fernald’s reason for accepting Podalonia as congeneric with
Psammophila was based on Spinola’s statement that the abdominal petiole of
bocandei was similar to that of “‘ Ammoph. arenaria Latr.” [=hirsuta Scopoli],
a species commonly recognized as a Psammophila.

8. Fernald did not pursue the identity of bocandei further, and until recently
(Bohart and Menke, 1963, p. 163) no one has questioned his interpretation of
Podalonia. The name Podalonia has gained world wide popular acceptance as
the proper name for the genus formerly known under the name Psammophila
Dahlbom. Several regional revisions and considerable biological work have
been published under the name Podalonia.

The identity of Ammophila bocandei

9. Searches by Menke in the museums in Paris and Turin for the holotype
of bocandei proved fruitless, and probably it is no longer in existence. There-
fore, the identity of bocandei rests solely on an interpretation of the original
description. Spinola’s description consists mainly of color, but even so it is
sufficient to cast strong doubts on the correctness of interpreting Podalonia as
congeneric with Psammophila Dahlbom. Several color features mentioned by
Spinola are of particular importance in this regard: head reddish yellow,
abdomen shiny blue black, wings cloudy and shiny blue. It is significant that
none of the Old World species currently assigned to Podalonia, sensu Fernald,
display any of these color characters, and although a few New World species
do have dark wings and abdomens, none have a reddish head, eliminating the

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

possibility that the locality data for bocandei were incorrect. Of further im-
portance are the reddish legs mentioned by Spinola. Red legs are found in
very few species of Podalonia, sensu Fernald, and when the legs are red, the
wings are invariably clear and the abdomen is largely red. None of the species
of Podalonia, sensu Fernald, have a petiolate second submarginal cell, except
perhaps an occasional aberrant individual and the authors have never seen
such a specimen.

10. At present it appears likely from the description of bocandei that it is
a species in the genus Chalybion Dahlbom, or perhaps less likely, either the
genus Parapsammophila Taschenberg or Chilorion Latreille.* All three genera
possess African species with color patterns which come close to matching that
of bocandei. However, Chalybion seems most likely to be the genus to which
bocandei belongs, because there are species in this genus which have the second
submarginal cell petiolate.

11. The conclusion one draws from these facts is that bocandei cannot
possibly be congeneric with Podalonia, sensu Fernald, and that therefore,
Podalonia Spinola cannot be considered as an available name for the pre-
occupied name Psammophila Dahlbom. Since no other name is available for
Psammophila Dahlbom, it is now necessary to propose a new name for this
taxon. However, this course of action would serve no useful purpose because
Podalonia, sensu Fernald, has enjoyed popular world wide usage for nearly
forty years and is a name around which a considerable literature has accumu-
lated. To offer a new generic name now would only cause more confusion
than uniformity and therefore we propose that Podalonia be conserved in the
sense of Fernald.

12. Several alternative methods for conserving the name Podalonia exist:

A. Throw out bocandei as the type of Podalonia Spinola and select a well
known African species of Podalonia, sensu Fernald, to be designated
under the plenary powers as the type species of Spinola’s genus. An
argument against such a move is that Spinola never intended Podalonia
to be accepted as a genus. The name was at best a conditional one.

B. Under the plenary powers arbitrarily synonymize bocandei with some
well known African Podalonia species (sensu Fernald). This sort of
action would be absolutely contrary to the published description of
bocandei as we have pointed out in paragraphs 9 and 10 above.

C. Suppress Podalonia Spinola under the plenary powers for purposes of
synonymy and homonymy, and credit Fernald, 1927, as having
authored and described the genus Podalonia; and at the same time
designate the oldest and best known species treated in Fernald’s
revision as the type of Podalonia Fernald. We favor this last method
since it in no way affects the validly described species bocandei and the
name Podalonia is insured of continued usage. The Commission is
therefore requested to:

* specifically, Chalybion fiuscipenne (Smith), Parapsammophila cyanipennis (Lepeletier), and
Chlorion ciliatum (Fabricius) [=xanthocerum Illiger].

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

(1) use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the generic name Podalonia Spinola, 1853, and all
other uses of that name before that by Fernald, 1927, for
the purposes of the Law of Priority and the Law of
Homonymy;

(b) to accord H. T. Fernald authorship of the generic name
Podalonia as characterized by him in 1927, and to designate
Ammophila violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species
of the genus.

(2) place the generic name Podalonia Spinola, 1853, (as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) place Podalonia Fernald, 1927 (as validated under the plenary
powers in (1) (b) above) on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology;

(4) place the specific name violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as published
in the binomen Ammophila violaceipennis (type-species of
Podalonia Fernald, 1927) on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

LITERATURE CITED

BouarT, R. M., and MENKE, A. S. 1963. A reclassification of the Sphecinae with
a revision of the Nearctic species of the tribes Sceliphionini and Sphecini.
Univ. Calif. Pub. Entomol. 30 (2) : 91-182

FERNALD, H. T. 1927. The digger wasps of North America of the genus Podalonia
(=Psammophila). Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 71 : 1-42

Kou, F. F. 1890. Die Hymenopterengruppe der Sphecinen, I: Monographie der
naturlichen Gattung Sphex Linné (sens. lat.). Ann. k.k. Naturhist. Hofmus.
Wien 5 : 77-194, 317-461

— 1896. Die Gattungen der Spheciden. Ann. k.k. Naturhist. Hofmus. Wien
11 : 233-516

—— 1906. Die Hymenopterengruppe der Sphecinen, III: Monographie der
Gattung Ammophila W. Kirby (sens. lat. = Ammophilinae Ashmead), Abt. A,
die Ammophilinen der palaarktischen Region. Ann. k.k. Naturhist. Hofmus.
Wien 22 : 228-382

LecLeRCQ, J. 1955. Hymenoptera Sphecoidea, Sphecidae I: Subfamily Sphecinae.
Explor. Parc. Nat. l’ Upemba, fasc. 34, 137 pp.

SPINOLA, M. 1853. Compte Rendu des Hyménoptéres inédits provenants du
voyage entomologique de M. Ghiliani dans le Para en 1846. Mem. Reale
Accad. Sci. Torino (2) 13 : 18-94

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ALOSA FALLAX (LACEPEDE, 1803): PROPOSED PRESERVATION AS
THE NAME FOR THE TWAITE SHAD (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1736

By A. N. Svetovidov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad)

Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803) has been the name accepted for the twaite
shad by the overwhelming majority of recent ichthyologists. A few workers
have also used the name Alosa finta (Cuvier, 1829). However, an earlier alleged
binominal name Alosa ficta... Duhamel, 1772, has been recently revived by
Spillman, Ch. J. (1961, Poissons d’eau douce, Faune de France 65 : 30 [303 pp.],
[Paris]). The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to
reject for nomenclatorial purpose the work of Duhamel du Monceau, 1769-
1782, entitled Traité général des Péches, et Histoire des Poissons qu’elles
fournissent, tant pour la subsistance des Hommes, que pour plusieurs autres usages
qui ont rapport aux Arts et Commerce, [Paris]. The intention of this action is
to secure the availability of the specific name fallax Lacépéde, B.G.E., 1803
(Histoire naturelle des poissons 5 : 424 of the edition in 5 volumes or 10 : 188
of the edition in 11 volumes, [Paris]) as used by him in the combination Clupea
fallax. The purposes of the application to reject the work of Duhamel (1769-
1782) is to seek an official ruling that any names in this work are not binominal
in accordance with Article 11 (c). A brief statement of facts follows.

2. The work of Duhamel (1769-1782) consists mainly of descriptions of
gear, ships, fisheries, means of preservation etc. of commercial fishes of North
Europe. Nevertheless, there are also detailed general systematical and
anatomical descriptions of the fishes, accompanied by many plates of figures.
However, Duhamel used no Latin binomina, but referred to fishes by the
French vernacular names and non-binominal, prelinnean ones. His attitude
towards Linnean names, for example of gadoid fishes, may be seen in the
following “ sij’emploie le terme d’ Asellus, c’est parce que je l’ai vu adopté par
plusieurs Auteurs, & sans prétendre faire aucune comparison entre les Morues
& les Anons: le terme de Gadus, que plusieurs ont adopté est tout aussi bon ”’.
(II Partie, Section I : 37). Linnean specific names and “ Systema naturae ”
are not mentioned in the work and only non-binominal ones and prelinnean
authors are cited by Duhamel. For example, on the same page under the
heading ‘“‘ De la Morue franche”’ the synonymy of the species is given as
follows, “‘ Asellus major vulgaris, Belg. Cabillaud, Willughby. Gadus dorso
tripterygio, ore cirrato, caudé aequali feré, cum radio primo spinoso; Artedi.
Murhua yulgaris, (maxima Asellorum species); Bellon. Molua vel Morhua
altera minor; Rondel. Gesn. Aldrov.” Similar references to the same authors
and similar names are given for all other species. In respect of Alosa ficta on
page 320 (II Partie, III Section, 1772) under the heading “ De la Feinte ”’
Duhamel wrote: ‘‘ Ce Poisson est appelé en latin Alosa ficta aut falsa, d’ou est
probablement dérivé le nom Francois Feinte. Quelques-uns l’ont nommé
Clupea maculis nigris notata’’. The author of neither of these names is men-
tioned; however the first name is considered to be that given by Duhamel.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53

3. The proposal that this work should be rejected for nomenclatural
purposes on the grounds that Duhamel did not employ the principles of bi-
nominal nomenclature in the body of the work, is supported by the statement of
Sherborn, C. D. (1902, Index Animalium : XXI) that it was non-binominal.
The authors who cited Duhamel’s name for the twaite shad rejected it as non-
binominal (e.g. Giinther, A., 1868, Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum,
7 : 435; Moreau, E., 1881, Histoire naturelle des poissons de la France, 3 : 456;
Smitt, F. A., 1895, 4 History of Scandinavian Fishes, 2 : 984).

4. The specific name fallax was established by Lacépéde (1803) in the
binomen Clupea fallax with a diagnosis nearly coinciding with that of Clupea
alosa L. which the author gave on the previous page. The main distinction of
the former species from the latter consists of “ sept taches brunes de chaque
coté du corps ”’ and that is one of the distinguishing characters between the two
species (e.g. Spillmann, 1961 : 25, 26, 36, figs. 4, 5). Cuvier, M. (1829, Le
Régne Animal, 2 : 320), however, described this species under the name Clupea
Jinta (from the vernacular French name, Finte). Cuvier’s species was regarded
as conspecific with Clupea fallax by Giinther (1868), and by subsequent authors.
Cuvier’s diagnosis of this Species is more strict, as follows, “‘ est plus alongée
que l’alose, et des dentes trés marquées au deux machoires, et cing ou six taches
noires le long du flanc”. The specific name finta Cuvier was employed as a
senior synonym only by earlier authors (e.g. Giinther, loc. cit.; Moreau, loc.
cit.; Smitt, loc. cit.) and by fishery biologists (e.g. Ehrenbaum, E., 1936,
Handbuch der Seefischerei Nordeuropas, 2 : 27; Andersson, K. A., 1942, Fiskar
och Fiske i Norden, 1 : 254) but later it was rejected and the name Alosa fallax
(Lacépéde, 1803) has been widely used in the recent European ichthyological
literature (e.g. Roule, L., 1925. Les poissons des eaux douces de la France : 78;
de Buen, F., 1935, Inst. Espanol. Oceanogr. Notas y Résumenes (2) 88 : 44;
Poll, M., 1947, Poissons marins, Faune de Belgique : 141; Bruun, A. Fr., and
Pfaff, J. R., 1950, Fishes in List of Danish Vertebrates : 26: Dollfus, R. Ph.,
1955, Tr. Inst. sci. Chérifien (Zool.), 6 : 28: Berg, L. S., 1962, Freshwater Fishes
of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries, 1 : 1949, translated from the Russian
edition 1948; Svetovidov, A. N., 1963, Clupeidae, Fauna of the U.S.S.R.,
Fishes, 2, 1: 34 6, translated from the Russian edition 1952).

5. Besides Duhamel’s specific name ficta some others by the same author
are mentioned by Spillmann (loc. cit.); for example Clupea major, Trutta marina
and T. fluviatilis. Fortunately these happen to be junior synonyms of Alosa
alosa (L.), and of Salmo trutta L. respectively.

6. Accordingly, I request the International Commission for Zoological
Nomenclature to take the following action:

(1) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the specific name ficta Duhamel, 1772, as published in the
combination Alosa ficta (rejected as published in a non-binominal
work);

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, fallax Lacépéde,
1803, as published in the combination C. lupea fallax ;

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological
Nomenclature, the publication of Duhamel du Monceau, 1769-1782,
Traité général des Péches, et Histoire des poissons qu’elles fournissent,
tant pour la subsistance des Hommes, que pour plusiers autres usages
qui ont rapport aux Arts et Commerce, (Paris) (a work in which the
author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55

GOBIUS LENKORANICUS KESSLER, 1877 (PISCES): PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION AS A NOMEN DUBIUM. Z.N(S.) 1737

By A. N. Svetovidov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad)

1. Kessler, K. (1877, Ribi vodiastshiesia i vstrechaiustshiesia v Aralo-
Caspiysko-Ponticheskoi ichthyologicheskoi oblasti, Tr. Aralo-Casp. Exp., 4 : 34
in Russian) described under the name Gobius lenkoranicus one poorly preserved
specimen of a gobiid fish from a littoral swamp near Lenkoran, the Caspian
Sea. He regarded it as allied to G. leopardinus Nordmann, 1840 (=Pomato-
schistus microps leopardinus of recent authors).

2. The original description of G. lenkoranicus was detailed but only
meristic counts, and head and body proportions were given. The sensory
canals, pores and pit-lines, the main characters used in the modern classification
of gobiids, were not studied.

3. Ijin, B. S. (1938, The Gulfs of the Caspian Sea Komsomolets (Mertvyi
Kultuk) and Kaidak, Complex Studies of the Caspian Sea, 2 : 123, in Russian,
with an English summary), who was the leading authority on gobiid fishes of
the U.S.S.R., suspected that G. /enkoranicus was conspecific with Pomatoschistus
caucasicus (Kawrajsky, 1899) of Berg, 1916, and studied Kessler’s specimen.
The specimen happened to be in such a bad state that Iljin was unable to identify
it. He came to the conclusion that the possibility of determining the identity
of G. lenkoranicus and P. caucasicus was hopelessly lost. However, the specific
name /enkoranicus as a senior synonym of P. caucasicus has been recently revived
by Georgiev, Zh. (1964, Bull. Inst. Piscicult. et Pécher.-Varna, 4 : 189, in
Bulgarian, with an English summary). His statement was based only on
Kessler’s description.

4. G. caucasicus Kawrajsky (1899, in Radde, Mus. caucas., 1: 309) is a
nomen nudum. It was named by Kawrajsky without description, definition
or indication, and only the localities of the specimens were mentioned (a littoral
swamp near Batum, the Black Sea, and Temirgoe, south of the Sulak River
mouth, the Caspian Sea). One of Kawrajsky’s specimens (from Batum) and a
specimen from the Inkit Lake near Pitzunda, the Black Sea, were described
under the name Pomatoschistus caucasicus by Berg, L. S. (1916, Les poissons des
eaux douces de la Russie : 409, in Russian). The specific name caucasicus has
been widely used in all recent ichthyological works.

5. The specific name /enkoranicus has been used only in a few earlier works
(e.g. Gratzianov, V. I., 1905, Versuch einer Ubersicht der Fische der Russischen
Reiches: 371, in Russian) and being an uncertain one it has not been employed
since that time. It was only mentioned in the list of species referred to
Pomatoschistus by Berg (1916). G. lenkoranicus, with a note of interrogation
to indicate it as a possible synonym of P. caucasicus, was used later by Berg,
L. S. (1949, Les poissons des eaux douces de PU.R.S.S., 3 : 1065, in Russian)
and Svetovidov, A. N. (1964, The fishes of the Black Sea : 419, in Russian).

6. Since the specific name /enkoranicus has remained unused as a senior
synonym in the recent literature, and since it is not certainly applicable to any

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

gobiid species and constitutes a threat to the specific name P. caucasicus, the
International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the
following actions:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name /enkoranicus Kessler,
1877, as published in the binomen Gobius lenkoranicus, for the pur-
poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Lawof Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, caucasicus
Berg, 1916, as published in the combination Pomatoschistus caucasicus ;

(3) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57

COLLIGNONICERAS BREISTROFFER, 1947 (MOLLUSCA,
AMMONOIDEA): APPLICATION TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST
OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY WITH PRIORITY FROM 1876.

Z.N.(S.) 1738

By T. Matsumoto (Kyushu, Japan) and C. W. Wright (London)

1. In 1876 Meek ( : 453) established a genus Prionotropis (type-species
by original designation Ammonites woollgari Mantell, 1822) for a group of
ammonites widespread in the Turonian stage of the Upper Cretaceous in
Europe, North America and Asia and of great stratigraphical importance. A
family was subsequently based by Zittel (1895 : 430) on this generic name and
came into general use. However Breistroffer (1947) recognized that the name
was a homonym of Prionotropis Fieber, 1853 (: 127) and proposed the sub-
stitute name Collignoniceras. At the same time he illegitimately replaced the
family name Prionotropidae Zittel by the name Prionocyclidae, based on
Prionocyclus Meek, 1876, a close relative of Prionotropis Meek non Fieber,
which had been provisionally Proposed by Haas in 1946 (: 218). Wright and
Wright (1951 : 30) corrected this by substituting the name Collignoniceratidae
based on the new name of the type-genus.

2. In 1940, however, Warren and Stelck (: 151) had established a new
genus Selwynoceras, type-species by original designation Prionotropis (2)
borealis Warren, 1930, regarded by them as closely allied to but distinct from
Prionotropis Meek non Fieber. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology
Wright (1957 : L 426) treated Selwynoceras as only subgenerically distinct from
Collignoniceras Breistroffer (=Prionotropis Meek non Fieber), but maintained
Collignoniceras as the name for the combined genus, although it was proposed
in 1947, on the assumption that as a replacement name for Prionotropis Meek,
1876, it took priority over Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940; this assumption
was incorrect at the time.

3. Whatever may have been the effect of the Rules in 1957, Article 39 (a) (i)
of the 1961 edition of the Rules laid down that the new name of the type-genus
of a family, that is found to be a junior homonym, should take the date of the
name replaced. It could therefore have been argued between 1961, when this
clause was adopted, and 1964, when it was dropped, that Collignoniceras
Breistroffer, 1947, should be assigned for purposes of priority the date 1876
and that it should not therefore be replaced by Selwynoceras when that genus
was regarded as subjectively synonymous with it, at generic or subgeneric level.

4. On the other hand Powell (1963 : 1223) held that Selwynoceras and
Collignoniceras were not even subgenerically distinct. He argued that
Selwynoceras was available as a substitute name for Prionotropis Meek non
Fieber and should have been adopted in 1947. He maintained Collignoni-
ceratidae as the correct name for the family, under Article 40, but ignored the
provision in Article 39 (a) (i), in force at the time and treated Collignoniceras
as a junior synonym of Selwynoceras.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. In the 1964 edition of the Rules, in accordance with the decision of
Congress, the provision under Article 39 for backdating replacement generic
and family names no longer appears.

6. Since its establishment in 1947 the name Collignoniceras has come into
general use and has appeared in a large number of stratigraphical and palaeon-
tological works, for example Biirgl, 1957: Cobban, 1951: Cobban & Reeside,
1952: Cobban, Rohrer & Erdmann, 1956: Matsumoto, 1959 a, 1959 b & 1965:
Matsumoto & Miller, 1958: Miiller, 1960: Wright, 1957 & 1963: Wright &
Wright, 1951. To the best of our knowledge no author has yet followed
Powell in substituting Se/wynoceras for Collignoniceras.

7. Authors may in future hold Se/wynoceras to be generically distinct
from or subgenerically distinct from or absolutely synonymous with Collignoni-
ceras Breistroffer. In the interest of stability of nomenclature of this wide-
spread and stratigraphically important group of ammonites it is highly desirable
to avoid changes of name resulting from subjective changes of opinion about
the relative taxonomic status of Selwynoceras and Collignoniceras. To achieve
this end it seems best that the Commission should under its plenary powers
assign the original date, 1876, of Prionotropis Meek non Fieber to its replace-
ment name Collignoniceras.

8. We therefore invite the Commission to:

(1) use its plenary powers to grant priority from 1876 to the generic name
Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947;

(2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947, with priority for the purposes of
synonymy from 1876, being the replacement name of Priono-
tropis Meek, 1876 non Fieber, 1853 (gender : neuter) (type-
species, by original designation Ammonites woollgari Mantell,
1822);

(b) Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940 (gender : neuter) (type-
species, by original designation, Prionotropis borealis Warren,
1930);

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Prionotropis Meek, 1876 (a junior homonym of
Prionotropis Fieber, 1853);

(4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) woollgari Mantell, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites
woollgari (type-species of Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947
(1876));

(b) borealis Warren, 1930, as published in the binomen Prionotropis (?)
borealis (type-species of Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59

REFERENCES

BREISTROFFER, M. 1947. Notes de nomenclature paléozoologiques. Proc. verb.
mens. Soc. Sci. Dauphiné, 26th year, no. 195 : 5 p. unnumbered

BuUrGL,H. 1957. Biostratigrafia de la Sabana de Bogota y Alrededores. Bol. Geol.,
5 : 113-185, pl. 1-19

CosBAN, W. A. 1951. Colorado Shale of Central and Northwestern Montana and
equivalent rocks of Black Hills.. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petr. Geol., 35 : 2170-
2198, 2 figs.

CoBBAN, W. A., and REESIDE, J.B. 1952. Correlation of the Cretaceous Formations
of the Western Interior of the United States. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 63 :
1011-1044, 2 figs., 1 pl.

CoBBAN, W. A., ROHRER, W. L., and ERDMANN, C. E. 1956. Discovery of the
Carlile (Turonian) ammonite Collignoniceras woollgari in northwestern
Montana. Jour. Paleont., 30 : 1269-1272

FiepeR, F. X. 1853. Synopsis der europdischen Orthopteren mit besonderes
Riicksicht der BOhmischen Arten. Lotos, 3 : 90-104, 115-129, 138-154,
168-176, 184-188, 201-207, 232-238, 252-261

Haas, O. 1946. Intraspecific variation in, and ontogeny of, Prionotropis woollgari
and Prionocyclus wyomingensis. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 86, 4 : 141-224,
fig. 1-108, pl. 11-24

MANTELL, G. 1822. Fossils of the South Downs

Matsumoto, T. 1959a. Upper Cretaceous Ammonites of California. Part II.
Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ., D. Geol., Special vol. I : 172 p., 41 pl., 80 figs.

— 1959b. Zonation of the Upper Cretaceous in Japan. ibid., 9 : 55-93, pl. 6-11

— 1965. A Monograph of the Collignoniceratidae from Hokkaido. Part I.
ibid., 16 : 1-80, pl. 1-18, fig. 140

Matsumoto, T., and MiLLerR, H. W. 1958. Cretaceous Ammonites from the spill-
way excavation of the Cedar Bluff dam, Trego County, Kansas. Jour. Paleont.,
32 : 351-356, pl. 44-45

MEEK, F. B. 1876. A Report on the Invertebrate Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils of
the Upper Missouri country. Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. Territories, (Hayden, 9) :
629 p., 45 pl.

MULier, A.H. 1960. Lehrbuch der Paléozoologie. Band II, Invertebraten, Teil 2.
Mollusca 2, Arthropoda 1

PoweLL, J. D. 1963. Turonian (Cretaceous) Ammonites from Northeastern
Chihuahua, Mexico. Jour. Paleont., 37 : 1217-1232, pl. 166-171, 6 figs.

WarRREN, P. S. 1930. Three new ammonites from the Cretaceous of Alberta.
Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, 24; sec. 4 : 25, pl. 3., fig. 1-4, pl. 4, fig. 1

WarREN, P. S., and STELCK, C. R. 1940. Cenomanian and Turonian faunas in the
Pouce Coupe district, Alberta and British Columbia. ibid. 34, sec. 4 : 143-
152, pl. 14

WRIGHT, C. W. 1957. in: Arkell et al., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
Part L, Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea

— 1963. Cretaceous ammonites from Bathurst Island, Northern Australia.
Palaeontology, 6 : 597-614, pl. 81-89

WRIGHT, C. W., and WricuT, E. V. 1951. A Survey of the Fossil Cephalopoda of
the Chalk of Great Britain. Palaeontogr. Soc.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

GALERITA GOUAN, 1770 (PISCES): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE
OFFICIAL INDEX TOGETHER WITH ADDITION OF GALERITA
FABRICIUS, 1801, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1739

By Hans Reichardt (Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura
Sao Paulo, Brazil)

The object of the present application is to ask the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to reject the generic name Galerita
Gouan, 1770, senior homonym of Galerita Fabricius, 1801.

2. The generic name Galerita was first published by Rondelet in 1554
(Libri de piscibus marinis ... Lugduni, apud Mathiam Bonhomme : 204), but was,
first used after the introduction of the Binomial System by Gouan in 1770
(Historia Piscium : 123), as a junior synonym of Blennius Linnaeus, 1758
(Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 256). Even though a nomen nudum in Gouan’s
Historica Piscium, and not adopted by either Gouan or a single subsequent
author, the name Galerita Gouan was listed in several nomenclators (Schulze,
Neave, etc.) as if it were an available name. As a result, it was incorrectly
treated as a senior homonym by several subsequent authors (see 5, 6, below).

3. In 1801 Fabricius described the homonymic genus Galerita for Coleop-
tera, Insecta (Systema Eleutheratorum 1 : 214).

4. Galerita Fabricius has been made the type-genus of a taxon in the
family-group by Lacordaire (1854, Généra des Coléoptéres 1 : 79), the Galéritides.

5. In 1936 the name Galeritu/a Strand was proposed (Folia Zool. Hydrobiol.
9 : 168) to replace Galerita Fabricius, nec Gouan.

6. In 1949, overlooking the existence of Galeritula Strand, 1936, Jeannel
(Faune de l’Empire Frangais 11 : 1057) proposed the name Galeritina to replace
Galerita Fabricius, nec Gouan.

7. Inthe same paper Jeannel proposed the family-group name Galeritinini
(type-genus Galeritini Jeannel, 1949) to replace Galeritini (type-genus Galerita
Fabricius, 1801).

8. Jedlicka in 1963 (Entom. Abhandl. Museum Dresden. 28 : 474) proposed
the family-group name Galeritulini (type-genus Galeritula Strand, 1936) to
replace Galeritini (type-genus Galerita Fabricius, 1801).

9. A forthcoming revision of the American species of the tribe which
includes the genus Galerita Fabricius, revealed that the genus Diabena Fair-
maire, 1901 (Bull. Soc. ent. France : 94) with two species in Madagascar, is a
subjective synonym of Galerita Fabricius. Diabena having 35 years of priority
over Galeritula Strand, would have to be used for the complex of 51 Neotropical,
7 Oriental and 17 Ethiopian species of the genus.

10. Even though two replacement names have been proposed and are
available for Galerita Fabricius (see 5, 6, above), the latter is still widely used
by specialists as well as non-specialists. As stated above (9), if Galerita Gouan
were accepted, nomenclatural procedure would require the application of
Diabena Fairmaire to the genus. Diabena Fairmaire, which was until now
restricted to two Malagasy species, is almost completely unknown outside the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61

Ethiopian Region. Galerita Gouan, the senior homonym of Galerita Fabricius
has never been used in the Binomial System as a senior synonym after 1758,
as stated above (2).

11. It seems to the writer that a strict application of the Law of Homonymy
in the case of Galerita Gouan, 1770 and Galerita Fabricius, 1801, is illogical,
because of the fact that the senior homonym is not used in the literature as a
valid generic name, while the junior homonym is a well known name in the
entomological literature.

12. It is therefore requested that Galerita Gouan, 1770, be rejected as a
nomen nudum and that Galerita Fabricius, 1801, be placed on the Official List.

13. For the reasons above it is requested that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names

in Zoology the family-group names:

(a) Galeritinini Jeannel, 1949 (type-genus, Galeritina Jeannel, 1949)
(a junior objective synonym of Galeritini Lacordaire, 1854);

(b) Galeritulini Jedlicka, 1963 (type-genus, Galeritula Strand, 1936) (a
junior objective synonym of Galeritini Lacordaire, 1854);

(2) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-
group name Galeritini Lacordaire, 1854 (type-genus, Galerita Fabricius
1801);

(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the generic name Galerita Gouan, 1770 (a nomen nudum);

(4) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name
Galerita Fabricius, 1801 (gender : feminine) (type-species, by designa-
tion by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 426),
Carabus americanus Linnaeus, 1758);

(5) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Carabus
americanus Linnaeus, 1758 (Systema Naturae, (ed. 10) : 415), as pub-
lished in the binomen Carabus americanus (type-species of Galerita
Fabricius, 1801).

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

APPLICATION TO SUPPRESS FOUR RICHARDSON FISH NAMES
Z.N.(S.) 1740

By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Nat. Hist.))

1. Richardson’s “‘ Report on the ichthyology of the seas of China and Japan”
(1846), lists 665 species, of which 142 were new species or varieties. For
various reasons, certain of Richardson’s names have lapsed into obscurity.

(a) The descriptions are often brief, or poor, or both.

(b) Reference to the size, locality, collector, donor and repository of the
specimens is sometimes inadequate for types to be recognized with
certainty.

(c) Some 22 of Richardson’s new species were based on Chinese specimens
collected by the Rev. G. Vachell and deposited in Cambridge. The
types of 19 of these species were subsequently lost (Whitehead &
Joysey, in press, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.)).

(d) Some 83 of Richardson’s new species were based solely on the unpub-
lished collections of paintings of Chinese fishes compiled by John
Reeves in about 1830, of which three copies are in the British Museum
(Natural History) and the fourth cannot be traced (see Whitehead,
1966, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), 14 (2) : 15-53).

It is unfortunate, therefore, that Richardson’s “‘ Report”’ pre-dates in part
some important ichthyological works of the mid-nineteenth century, e.g. most
of Bleeker’s papers on fishes (1844-1880), and also the later volumes of both
the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (1828-1850) of Cuvier & Valenciennes, and
the Fauna Japonica, Pisces (1842-1850) of Temminck & Schlegel. As a result
of two recent studies (Whitehead, Joc. cit. and Whitehead & Joysey, Joc. cit.),
the following Richardson names have been found to be senior synonyms of
well-known or commercially important species whose hitherto accepted names
have been commonly used for over acentury. In the interests of nomenclatural
stability, it is proposed here that the Richardson names be rejected. Future
work on Richardson’s species will undoubtedly produce more such names.

2. The following names date from Richardson’s “‘ Report”. The identifi-
cation of the species has been fully discussed by Whitehead (Joc. cit.).

(a) Clupea isingleena Richardson, 1846. Type: a fish of 108-5 mm.
standard length in the British Museum (BMNH. 1963.6.17.1), hitherto
labelled erroneously as type of Clupea nymphaea (see below), but now
recognized as the holotype of C. isingleena. The specimen is identified
as Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes, 1847), a common Indo-Pacific
species frequently cited in the literature. I have been unable to find
reference to the name isingleena as a senior synonym for a clupeoid
fish since its first proposal in 1846.

(b) Clupea nymphaea Richardson, 1846. Type: Reeves specimen in the
British Museum from Canton, now lost; former type of C. nymphaea,
now recognized as the lost type of C. isingleena. On Richardson’s
description and the Reeves illustration (No. A 25), this species has

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

been identified as Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847, the most
widespread and commercially important of all Sardinella species.
The name nymphaea is not a nomen oblitum, having been in constant
(mis)use for well over 50 years as a result of the type specimen errone-
ously associated with it.

(c) Clupea caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846. No Type, the species based
solely on a Reeves illustration (No. 59). The identification of this
species is uncertain, but all known Chinese clupeoids can be eliminated
except Sardinella leiogaster Valenciennes, 1847, Sardinella aurita
Valenciennes, 1847 and Sardinella clupeoides (Bleeker, 1849). The
first of these has been considered the most probable. The name
caeruleovittata pre-dates the above names, all of which have been
widely accepted in the literature; it has not been used as a senior
synonym for a clupeoid fish for over 50 years and can be considered a
putative nomen oblitum.

3. The following name dates from Richardson’s “ Zoology of the Voyage of
the Sulphur, 1 — Ichthyology ’’, published in three fasciculi between April 1844
and October 1845 (see “ Report”, p. 316 for clue to dating). The identification
of this species is discussed fully in Whitehead & Joysey (loc. cit.).

(a) Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1844. type: a fish 228 mm. standard
length in the Museum of Zoology, Cambridge (No. F.2002), the jar
labelled “* Anguilla vulgaris China Rev. G. Vachell”’. The specimen
is now identified as Anguilla Japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1846, the
common Japanese freshwater eel. The name Japonica has been widely
used in the literature for over a century; the name clathrata, on the
other hand, has been used as a senior synonym only once in the last
fifty years, and then only in an index of species without description
(Chu, 1931, Index Piscium Sinensium, Biol. Bull. St. John’s Univ.,
No. 1 : 290 pp.). I have been unable to find a reference to the name
clathrata in the fifty years prior to 1931.

4. In order to bring stability to the nomenclature and to prevent the intro-
duction of little used Richardson names for common Indo-Pacific fishes, it is
proposed that the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature
should:

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the following senior synonyms for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy,

Clupea isingleena Richardson, 1846
Clupea nymphaea Richardson, 1846
Clupea caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846
Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1844

(2) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) isingleena Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea
isingleena;

(b) nymphaea Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea
nymphaea;

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(c) caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen
Clupea caeruleovittata;
(d) clathrata Richardson, 1844, as published in the binomen Anguilla

clathrata;
(3) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology;
(a) fimbriata Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Spratella
fimbriata;
(b) aurita Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Sardinella
aurita;

(d) japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1846, as published in the binomen
Anguilla japonica.

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director)

Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E.
Prof. Dr. R. Sparck

Dr. N. R. Stoll

Mr. C. W. Wright

Dr. G. F. de Witte

B. The Officers of the Trust

W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller)
Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

Opinions
Opinion 761 (Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909)
Opinion 762 (Seven Holothurioidea names)
Opinion 763 (Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818)
Opinion 764 (Chaetoderma Lovén and Chaetodermis Swainson) _
Opinion 765 (Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931) j
Opinion 766 (Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1861) ..
Opinion 767 (Serpula Linnaeus, 1758) ee
Opinion 768 (Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861)
Opinion 769 ( Yoldia Moller and Portlandia Mérch)
Opinion 770 (Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) ... ;
Opinion 771 (Thamnophis sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758)
Opinion 772 (Curimata Walbaum, 1792)

New Cases

TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI (Lacordaire): Proposed emendation of
family-group names under the plenary powers (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Curtis W. Sabrosky and Elwood C. Zimmerman)

Podalonia Spinola, 1853 (Hymenoptera): Proposed suppression under
plenary powers in favour of Podalonia Fernald, 1927, with Ammophila
violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species (A. S. rena R. M.
Bohart and J. van der Vecht)

Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803): Proposed preservation a as s the 1 name for
the Twaite Shad (Pisces) (A. N. Svetovidov) . F

Gobius lenkoranicus Kessler, 1877 (Pisces): Proposed suppression as a
nomen dubium. (A. N. Svetovidov)

Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947 (Ammonoidea): ‘Application to place
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with priority from
1876 (T. Matsumoto and C. W. Wright) va

Galerita Gouan, 1770 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official Index,
together with addition of Galerita Fabricius, 1801, to the Official List
(Hans Reichardt) ;

Application to suppress four Richardson Fish names es (P. J. P. Whitehead)

CONTENTS ~
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Comments

Comments on the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus (C. L. Hubbs,
W. E. China) : a3

Comment on the proposed validation of Cacatua (A. R. ‘Phillips)

Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species for Pithecops
Horsfield, 1828 (L. E. Couchman) my

Comment on the proposed addition of Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, to the
Official List (F. R. Woodward) ..

Withdrawal of application for the designation ofa | type-species for Stizus
Latreille, [1802-1803] (R. M. Bohart) .

Comments on the type-species of Trychosis Foerster, 1868 . F: “Perkins:
G. van Rossem)

Opposition to the proposed. designation of a type-species for Phasia
Latreille. (C. W. Sabrosky)

Comment on the proposed designation of a a ‘type- species ‘for Prospaltlla
Ashmead, 1904 (B. D. Burks)

Comments on the request for a Declaration against the suppression of
nomina dubia (W. D. L. Ride, H. Lemche)

© 1966. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment

Volume 23, Double Part 2/3 29th July, 1966
pp. 65-128

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENGEATURE
Cs eC Sia

ks
fo NAT. HIST, ¥

{ 1966 )
\ PURCHASED »
Way @&

vf
Oey? Wee

The omadiocn, of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page
Alden H. Miller ts Sou wks ie ae #5 be} 65
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:
Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BAe a nee 66

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 66

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1.

1966

Price Five Pounds
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (28 August 1963)

Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London,
S.W.7) (31 May 1960)

Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)

B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16
December 1954)
Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)
Protect — (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
y
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)
Professor Tadeusz JaczEwskI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (23 July 1958)
Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum wu. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
’ Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958)
Dr. D. V. OprucuHEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.)
(5 November 1958)
eT Tohru Ucuma (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March
Prot ne eS ee ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain)
ay
Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum(Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary)
Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa,
C ) (9 June 1961)
Ai W. ull CHINA (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant
ecretary
Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962)
Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963)
Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans,
Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
MG ries a STOLL (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
ouncillor
Dr. L. B. Hottnuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(28 August 1963) (Acting President)
Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor)
ae J. rb a (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963)
‘ouncillor
Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla
California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
Pos he ogy Se aan dr Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
ugust
Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)
Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 23, Double Part 2/3 (pp. 65-128) 29th July, 1966

ALDEN H. MILLER (1906-1965)
President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

With Professor Alden H. Miller’s death, the Commission lost a distinguished
and effective President. Born February 4, 1906 at Los Angeles, son of the
well-known ornithologist and naturalist Loye Miller, he was connected with the
University of California from his student days to his death. Miller became
Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley, California in 1940
and Professor of Zoology in 1945.

Miller was a distinguished zoologist. With his outstanding revision of the
avian genus Junco in 1941 he established himself as one of the leaders of the new
systematics, a position which he solidified through his subsequent work and that
of his students. Equally fundamental and pioneering were his experimental
studies on photoperiodism and the control of breeding seasons in temperate
zone and tropical birds.

He was an indefatigable worker. In spite of his active teaching schedule, the
supervison of many graduate students, and very numerous administrative duties,
he was able to carry out a highly productive research program. Among his
over 200 publications are a whole series of eminent monographs. During his
more than 25 years of editorship, the ornithological journal Condor achieved
an enviable standard of excellence.

Many honors came to him in recognition of his scientific achievements, such
as the Brewster Gold Medal, membership in the National Academy of Sciences
(1957), and the presidency of the American Ornithologists’ Union. Many of the
31 students who took their Ph.D. with him now occupy prominent positions in
American science.

Being known for his integrity, efficiency and fairmindedness, administrative
duties were continuously thrust upon him. 1961-62 and again 1963-64 he
served as Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) of the University of California;
at other times he served as dean, as acting chairman of the Department of
Paleontology (1959-61), and on innumerable committees. It was his reputation
of impartiality and efficiency that recommended him for election to the Presi-
dency of the Commission and it is a tragedy that he did not have the oppor-
tunity to exercise his talents presiding over a meeting of the Commission.

Miller loved field research, and his field note books record observations and
collected specimens from 51 field trips in 36 years. Much of this was subse-
quently used in his publications. Asa person he was courteous and generous,
but somewhat reserved, perhaps even shy in his younger years. When con-
sulted either by a colleague or student, he was always most helpful, never shirking
a duty. His family life was exemplary and in spite of his arduous duties he
always found time for recreational outdoor activities with his wife and children.
With them he built a cabin and boat house at his summer camp of Clear Lake

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(California), and it was there that a heart attack took him away on October 9,
1965, at the age of 59 years.

Miller had the respect, indeed the admiration, of all those who were
acquainted with him. Those who knew him best feel a keen sense of loss over
the passing of a particularly fine human being. The Commission will miss his
wise counsel and experienced leadership.

[A more detailed memorial and full bibliography will be published by the
National Academy of Sciences.] Ernst Mayr.

NOTICES

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the
present part of the Bulletin:

(1) Suppression of Bryaxis schneideri Kugelann, 1794; Designation of a
type-species for Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera).
Z.NAS.) 1642.

(2) Designation of a neotype for Megalichthys hibberti Agassiz, 1835;
Validation of Rhizodus hibberti Owen, 1840; Suppression of Holopty-
chius Egerton, 1837, and Holoptychus Buckland, 1837 (Pisces). Z.N.
(S.) 1690.

(3) Designation of neotypes for Anthocoris nigrellus Zetterstedt, 1838,
Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt, 1838, Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallen,
1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1732.

(4) Designation of a type-species for Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (Insecta,
Thysanoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1741.

c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA
Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary,
London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on

June 1966. Zoological Nomenclature

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION OF PAN OKEN,
1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816
(see volume 22, pages 230-232)

By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History,
Chicago, Illinois)

Morrison-Scott (B.Z.N. 22 : 230, 1965) requests conservation of the ‘ generic ”
names Panthera and Pan from Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, published 1816.
In 1956, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rejected, in
Opinion 417, the Lehrbuch for Purposes of zoological nomenclature. I have shown
elsewhere (1949, Journ. Mammal., 30 : 289-301) that there is no need to revert to this
non-binomial work for any zoological name. Nearly all generic names for mammals
ostensibly cited from Oken’s Lehrbuch are available in well known and nomenclaturally
valid publications. Two or three “ Oken ” names still current but with availability
from binomial works clouded by questions of homonymy or priority may give concern
to some zoologists. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature can,
by use of its plenary powers, validate such names from any nomenclaturally recognized
source. Nevertheless, action should not be taken in cases where non-Oken names are
available under the Code and in use without entailing confusion in concepts or upheav-
als in nomenclature.

Zoologists who publish taxonomic revisions, check lists, or catalogs of animals,
assume full responsibility for each bibliographic reference they cite and for the taxo-
nomic status and availability of each name they recognize. Authors such as G. M.
Allen (1939, A check list of African mammals), G. G. Simpson (1945, The principles
of classification and a classification of mammals), and J. R. Ellerman and T. C. S.
Morrison-Scott (1951, Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758 to 1946) who
gleaned names from Palmer (1904, Index generum mammalium) but cited them as if
copied directly from Oken, 1816, are representing bad names for good and imprecise or
non-existent bibliographic references for original and valid sources. It is ironical that
Zoologists who scorned the rules of nomenclature now apply to the International
Commission on Nomenclature for conservation of counterfeit names they favored and
rejection of the appropriate and currently used bonafide names they disfavor.

“ Panthera Oken, 1816 ”

In his proposal, Morrison-Scott states that conservation of Panthera for great cats
requires validation of the name from Oken, 1816. He adds that inasmuch as Felis
colocolo, the ascribed type of ‘‘ Panthera Oken ” is not a great cat, it is necessary to
designate another type, namely Felis pardus Linnaeus.

Oken’s Lehrbuch contains no generic name Panthera as used and understood by
modern authors. Felis pardus, as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his
“ Panthera ” and is not unequivocably the Linnaean Felis pardus. Morrison-Scott
gives no bibliographic reference to his fancied ‘“* Panthera Oken, 1816 ” and he cannot
because there is none. In short, Morrison-Scott requests validation of a name froma
work rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature, cited from an author who never
proposed the name in the form or sense currently used or recognized by Morrison-
Scott, and with the type species pulled out of a hat.

Procedure, technicalities, legalities and proprieties to one side, the claim that there is
need for conserving Panthera as of Oken, Morrison-Scott, or anyone else, does not
bear scrutiny.

The most widely used name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus. This is the generic
name applied to all North American cats, except lynxes, by Hall and Kelson (1959) in
“‘ The mammals of North America.” These authors treat “‘ Panthera ” of Frisch and
Oken as “ unavailable’. Cabrera (1958 : 298) in his authoritative “ Catalogo de los
mamiiferos de America del Sur ”, employs Leo Brehm 1829 (Oken’s Isis, p. 637) as the
generic name for great cats. In his posthumous monograph of Argentine cats

Bull. zool. Nomencl. , Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Cabrera (1962 : 162) categorically denies recognition to names proposed in works
officially rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature irrespective of the facade of
legality they may subsequently receive. In my manuscript catalog of South American
mammals, Felis is the generic name used for most species of cats including the jaguar.
There is no intention or thought of recognizing “‘ Panthera ’ under any guise.

Wide usage of Panthera for great cats stems from Pocock (1916, Ann. Mag. Nat.
Hist., (8), 18 : 314). This authority believed that “‘ since the tendency of modern
systematic mammalogy has found in the present instance expression in the admission of
many [!] species of leopard, lion, jaguar and tiger, it is possible, perhaps probable, that
the logical outcome of that process—namely, the ascription of generic rank to each of
these animals—will be followed in the future. If that be so, nominal symbols are
available for them.”’ With these remarks, Pocock (/oc. cit.) listed the following generic
names for great cats.

Panthera Oken, ex Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16 : 377), for the

leopard.

Tigris Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 UIndex generum mammalium, N.A.F., 23 : 509), for the
tiger.

Leo Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 (op. cit., p. 368), for the lion.

Uncia Gray, 1854 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 14 : 394), for the ounce.

Jaguarius Severtzow, 1858 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2), 10 : 386), for the jaguar.

Recognition of five genera of great cats persuaded Pocock to raise the group to
subfamily rank, the Pantherinae, primarily on the basis of a character of the hyoid
apparatus which now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally supposed.
Other characters adduced for generic separation of great cats from small as typified by
Felis catus Linnaeus, have not withstood critical review. Validation of Panthera as the
obligate generic name for great cats is neither indicated nor in the best interest of tax-
onomy or nomenclature.

It is urged that Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of ‘‘ Panthera Oken,
1816’, be rejected. The reasons are summarized as follows.

1. ‘‘ Panthera Oken, 1816 ”’ is an undigestible artifice. Current usage of the name

stems from Allen, 1902 (supra cit.) and Palmer, 1904 (supra cit.).

2. The most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus.

3. There is no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardus
Linnaeus, are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis catus
Linnaeus. Generic or subgeneric distinction between the two groups is,
however, recognized by some authorities (not merely authors or compilers).
Generic names, other than “ Panthera ”’, for separating them are available
and in use.

4. The earliest available generic (or subgeneric) name for great cats is Leo Brehm,
1829 (supra cit.), type Felis leo Linnaeus. Current and spreading usage of
this valid and uncontroversial name promotes stability, meets with no serious
objections and results in no confusion.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should not validate
a rejected name for which there is no need from a non-binomial work which
most zoologists cannot or will not in clear conscience accept on zoological or
nomenclatural grounds.

In conclusion, it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature

(1) place the name “ Panthera Oken”’, cited by authors, on the Official List of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;

(2) place the generic name Leo Brehm, 1829 (Oken’s Isis, p. 637), on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

** Pan Oken, 1816”
Scientific names of primates are used by a very small number of zoologists. Few
anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical and biochemical
investigators and others using non-human primates in research or for display, are

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

zoologists. Hardly any of them are taxonomists. Scientific names of animals mean
little to them. The rules of nomenclature mean even less. There is an urgent need to
convince non-zoologists and non-taxonomists of the importance of taxonomic dis-
criminations and the use of correct scientific names for experimental and display animals.
This task becomes particularly difficult and complicated if workers are asked to use
technical names which are not valid according to our Code and which have been
declared unavailable by special ruling of our Commission.

The name ‘“‘ Pan Oken, 1816 ”, for the chimpanzee, has not been universally
adopted. It is or would be rejected by the vast majority of zoologists familiar with the
rules of nomenclature and the history of Oken’s Lehrbuch. As noted, most of those
who work with chimpanzees are not accustomed to use scientific names for animals.
They may be more familiar with the pipes of Pan than with the Pan of Oken. This
makes it all the more urgent to arouse the nomenclatural consciousness of those who
use chimpanzees in research with the valid and convincing generic name, Chimpansee
Voigt.

Morrison-Scott’s belief that the change from Pan to Chimpansee after earlier
usage of Pan, Simia and Anthropopithecus “ hardly contributes to stability ’’, is not
supported by history.

Nomenclatural changes have consistently moved toward stability by rejection of the
invalid for the valid. The history of such names as Callithrix Erxleben, 1777, versus
Hapale Mlliger, 1811, and Saguinus Hoffmannsegg, 1807, versus Leontocebus Wagener,
1840, Marikina Lesson, 1840, Tamarin Gray, 1870 and others, prove the point. The
many “ Oken names ” widely used during a 20-30 year span have all but disappeared
from recent literature. The attempt to salvage Pan (and Panthera) seems to be a bela-
ted and gratuitous rearguard action.

The contention that confusion would ensue should gorillas and chimpanzees be
combined generically is baseless. I doubt the premise but here are the alternatives.

Pan gorilla

Pan troglodytes

versus

Chimpansee gorilla

Chimpansee troglodytes

I submit that the true identity of either chimpanzee or gorilla is less likely to be
confused under the generic name Chimpansee than under that of Pan.

“ Pan” gained currency through Elliott’s despairingly erratic, “‘ A review of the
Primates (1913, p. 227)”. “Elliott’s source for the name was, of course, Palmer (1904,
Index generum mammalium, p. 508). Very little survives of Elliott’s contributions to
primatology and there is no good reason for clinging to his usage of ‘‘ Pan Oken ”.

In conclusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
requested to

(1) reject Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of “ Pan Oken ”.

(2) place the name “ Pan Oken *”’, cited by authors, and the sales catalog name
Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 (A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological
museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., etc., p. 48), on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) place the generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 (Cuvier’s Das Thierreich, 1 : 76),
type, Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, by monotypy, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

By Fernando Dias de Avila-Pires (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil)

I would like to comment on the proposed validation of the generic names Pan
Oken, 1816, and Panthera Oken, 1816.

I do not think that considering one work non-nomenclatorial but validating a
number of names published in it would contribute at all to make nomenclature stable.
Theoretically we could have one book in the “ index” as non-valid, but with the
majority or the totality of its names validated.

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

In the present case I very much regret to disagree with T. C. Morrisson-Scott, on
the following grounds.

1. Pan undoubtedly is a “ well stabilized ’’ name for the chimpanzees. In case we
accept the correct generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, it certainly will be confusing
for non-taxonomists to call a gorilla, Chimpansee, once they are accepted as co-generic.
But it would also be confusing to call scientifically a gorilla, Pan, once it is a “ well
stabilized’? name for the chimpanzees... In fact what is confusing and strange—to
non-primatologists—is not the nomenclatorial problem, but the discovery that gorillas
and chimpanzees are so closely related. Jf the name Gorilla was older than Pan or
Chimpansee, it would also be confusing to call a chimpanzee, Gorilla.

2. With the names Panthera Oken, 1816, and Leo Brehm, 1829 the same problem
arises. Lions, jaguars, tigers and leopards (or panthers), all belong to the same genus.
But when you use a new combination for the first time, then you realize how closely
related these animals are considered to be. To calla panther Leo is no more confusing
than to call a lion, Panthera.

Altogether, there is some argument about the type-species of Panthera Oken, which
Hershkovitz holds to be the South American Felis colocolo, once Allen selected
Panthera vulgaris Oken as the type-species.

WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR THE VALIDATION UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS OF TINODES PUSILLUS McLACHLAN, 1862 (INSECTA,
TRICHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1592
(see volume 20, pages 395-396)

By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

The proposal contained in this application was submitted to Commissioners for a
vote on Voting Paper (65)29, issued on 23 August 1965. Although a two-thirds
majority vote for Mr. Kimmins’ proposals was obtained, Commissioners Holthuis,
Lemche, Ride and Sabrosky returned comments with their Voting Papers pointing
out that both Tinodes pusillus Curtis, 1834, and Tinodes pusillus McLachlan, 1862, have
no nomenclatural status, being merely re-uses of Phryganea pusilla Fabricius, 1781.
Although in 1834 Curtis queried the synonymy of his pusilla with P. pusilla Fabricius,
1781, in 1837 (Guide to the arrangement of British Insects (ed. 2) : 171) he dropped the
question mark. Neither 7. pusillus Curtis, 1834, nor T. pusillus McLachlan, 1862,
therefore, poses a threat to Tinodes assimilis McLachlan, 1865.

Mr. Kimmins’ aim, to conserve the name Tinodes assimilis McLachlan, is, conse-
quently, fulfilled without action by the Commission and he has decided to withdraw his
application.

The taxon previously known under the names pusillus Curtis, 1834, pusillus McLach-
lan, 1862, and aureolus auct. nec Zetterstedt, is now without a name. Mr. Kimmins
will provide one in the near future in some entomological journal.

Application Z.N.(S.) 1592 is consequently withdrawn.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE
FOR BELEMNITES MUCRONATUS LINK, 1807. Z.N.(S.) 1160
(see volume 21, pages 268-296; volume 22, pages 138-139, 343-345)

By R. V. Melville and C. J. Wood (Geological Survey and Museum,
London, England)

1. We wish to support the main arguments of Dr. Jeletzky’s application for the
designation under the plenary powers of a neotype for the species generally known by
the name Belemnitella mucronata. One of us (R.V.M.) has already done so in general

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71

terms (p. 138 above) and both of us ardently wish to see this name stabilized in its
accepted sense. However, we wish also to associate ourselves with Peake and Hancock
(pages 343-345 above) in their criticisms of Dr. Jeletzky’s choice of a specimen to
serve as neotype. In particular, we urge our German colleagues to lose no time in
submitting a suitable specimen from one of the localities suggested by Peake and
Hancock, so that the Commission may have all the relevant facts and arguments in its
hands without delay.

2. We wish also to add two further comments on points of detail, as follows.

3. The authorship of the specific name.—Link (1807, p. 9) can only be claimed as the
author of the binomen Belemnites mucronatus on the basis of the following passage:

“* B. vulgatus gemeiner Belemnit. Die Verschiedenheiten scheinen nur Ab-
anderungen zu sein, doch macht die fein gespitzte (B. mucronatus) vielleicht
eine eigene Art aus. Haiifig in Mecklenburg. Sie selbst verstehen aus
Kalkstein, liegen aber in dichtem Kalkstein, Kreide oder Feuerstein.”
It will be seen that he is not unequivocally naming a taxon considered as distinct from
Belemnites vulgatus. The words “doch... . vielleicht ” in our view suffice to show
this, and we ask the Commission to rule that the name is not available. The specific
name mucronatus has been attributed by a large majority of authors to Schlotheim,
1813, and there is no reason to change this established practice. There is no evidence
that Schlotheim knew of Link’s work, but if the ruling we ask for is given, then the
question no longer arises.
4. Furthermore, it is not possible to have any idea of the starting-point from which
a neotype is to be designated for the alleged nominal species Belemnites mucronatus
Link, 1807—even apart from the fact that the combination has not been used—since
Link gives no illustration and cites no specimens. His “ locality ” (Mecklenburg) is a
wide area almost completely covered by Glacial deposits incorporating boulders from
a wide range of geological Systems as well as large “‘ Schollen ” of Chalk of various
ages. Mesozoic (i.e. potential belemnitiferous) strata recorded (either as boulders or
in situ) from Mecklenburg include Lias, miscellaneous Jurassic formations, Gault, and
Cenomanian, Turonian and Senonian Chalk. Of these, the Lias and the Cenomanian
and Senonian Chalk have all yielded belemnites. Link’s specimens may thus have
included some of Jurassic provenance, though the presence of large Chalk “ Schollen ”
near Rostock and his mention of Chalk and flint point rather to derivation from the
Chalk. However, even if it could be shown that the original specimens certainly came
from the Chalk, the description “ fein gespitzte ” is insufficient to separate any one
among the majority of species of Chalk belemnites.

5. The authorship of the nominotypical subspecific name.—Dr. Jeletzky (pp. 279,
285, 286, 289, text-fig. 1, Expl. pl. 1) wrongly supposes that the subspecies Belemnitella
mucronata mucronata can be attributed to Naidin, 1956. The author of the name of the
nominotypical subspecies is, of course, the same as that of the specific name, namely
Link, 1807, or Schlotheim, 1813, whichever the Commission decides.

6. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) To rule that the specific name mucronatus Link, 1807, as published in the

binomen Belemnites mucronatus, is not available because it was proposed in a
conditional manner.
(2) To read “‘ Schlotheim, 1813” in place of “ Link, 1807”, in Dr. Jeletzky’s proposals
(vol. 21, pp. 278-9).

(3) To place the specific name mucronatus Link, 1807 (as published in the binomen
Belemnites mucronatus) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology.

LITERATURE CITED
Link, H. F., 1807. Beschreibung der Naturaliensammlung der Universitat zu Rostock.
Teil IV: Fossile Uberbleibsel organischer Korper, sogennante Versteinerungen.
Rostock.

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ANCISTRODON
(REPTILIA—SERPENTES) Z.N.(S.) 671
(see volume 22, pages 300-302)

By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Taxonomists have long been warned that it is the much larger group of “ non-
taxonomists *” which threatens, through exasperation with name-changing of taxon-
omists, the authority of nomenclatural decisions, by withdrawal of the respect and
faith that are so essential to stability. But even taxonomists are tried at times by
occasional lapses of their own system for achievement of stability. Ancistrodon vs.
Agkistrodon is a case in point. Herpetologists, particularly American, have endured
a half-century of alteration between acceptance of Agkistrodon on authoritative
assurance and acceptance of Ancistrodon on equally authoritative grounds. No less
than four exchanges of one name for the other have occurred, each followed by a
period of relative uniformity of opinion.

In exasperation with this vacillation, I heartily urge the Commission to fix the
orthography of the name with finality and the weight of its explicit authority. The
only question is: which orthography is to be conserved ?

As a personal preference I would strongly endorse perpetuation of Agkistrodon,
since this is the name to which I have been accustomed. Certainly a large proportion
of active herpetologists have the same preference, for the case made for it by Klauber
(1956) was both persuasive and widely-noted. I am not aware of any defended stand
taken for Ancistrodon since that time, until Dr. Parker presented his brief.

Nevertheless a large number of herpetologists, Parker among them, has continued
to use Ancistrodon despite Klauber’s arguments and any public refutation of them.
A worldwide census taken to reveal relative popularity, in the sense of accustomed use,
of these two orthographies among living zoologists would probably reveal at most no
more than a 40-60 per cent disparity. A complete census would be difficult even to
approach, since the generic name is very widely used in popular works, zoos and
experimental studies. Certainly most usages are not based upon critical reappraisal
of nomenclatural merit; they certainly stem largely from the influence of some work
accepted as a guide, whether old or new, popular or technical. A reasonable number
of works that might wield such influence use each orthography, Agkistrodon and
Ancistrodon.

A choice between the two names by the Commission can seemingly not be made on
grounds of popularity. The principles likewise provide little solace, for conservation
of either name violates some prescription of procedural policy. Conservation of
Agkistrodon would in this case suspend application of Art. 32 of the 1961 Code, and
conservation of Ancistrodon would require suspension of the “‘ automatic ” provision
of Art. 86. The long history of official recognition of Ancistrodon implicit (and
unfortunately not explicit) in earlier Codes certainly lends weight to acceptance of that
version. Nevertheless no clear-cut case can be made incontrovertibly supporting one
choice over the other.

The circumstances of the present case fall into the classic pattern leading to growth
of an “issue” on which hinges personal pride and determination to maintain the
“ status quo ”, whatever it may be for any given person, since no strongly persuasive
case is evident for the opposite view. An alternative proposal might be submitted to
the Commission to rule just the opposite of Dr. Parker’s request—namely to conserve
Agkistrodon and reject Ancistrodon. Then the matter will have “ arrived ” at a full-
blown issue comparable in ultimate significance to some famous historical parallels such
as the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin, or which end of the egg
must be broken first.

Since the choice is of so little intrinsic significance, and has no specific bearing upon
the principles of the Code or their interpretation (and the Commission is urged to

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73

avoid all involvements of this nature, as indeed is implied by Parker), I strongly
recommend that zoologists defer in good grace to the intent of the initial proposal,
which in a sense holds a priority that should be the determining factor in a case, such
as this, wherein professional courtesy is more at stake than principle or popularity in
establishing stability.

Accordingly I strongly urge approval of Parker’s request for conservation of
Ancistrodon Beauvois, 1799.

By Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

I wish to express my opposition to the proposal made by Dr. H. W. Parker that the
Commission use its plenary power to validate the generic name Ancistrodon as an
emendation of Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799, placing Ancistrodon on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology, and, at the same time, placing Agkistrodon on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names.

I take this position because of the belief that Dr. Parker’s recommendation is con-
trary to the achievement of stability in nomenclature. Dr. Parker’s recommendation
is based on the premise that Beauvois made an error in transliteration in devising the
name Agkistrodon, which, therefore, should be changed to Ancistrodon.

It seems to me that if continuity and stability are to be maintained in nomenclature
the original describer’s spelling of a name should be retained. Ifa treatment similar
to that which Dr. Parker has suggested in this instance were adopted there is no infor-
mation presently available as to how many other names might be subject to similar
emendation. Taxonomists should not be subject to uncertainties of this kind, but
should be afforded a feeling of confidence if they follow the simple and obvious pro-
cedure of adopting the original spelling of a name.

Of the usages in two American herpetological journals, showing the number of
articles employing the names in question, the following comparative figures are of
interest: COPEIA, 1913 to 1965, Agkistrodon, 146, Ancistrodon, 31; HERPETOLOGICA,
1936 to 1965, Agkistrodon, 82, Ancistrodon, 28. The frequency of references appearing
in these journals is high because of the importance of this genus in the North American
fauna. It is clear that Dr. Parker’s Suggestion would involve a more extensive revision
in taxonomic procedure than a retention of Agkistrodon.

I am of the opinion that, if any action upon the part of the Commission is deemed
necessary, stability should dictate that the generic name Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799, be
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and that the name Ancistrodon
seals be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

oology.

By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

I regret that I cannot agree with the application by Dr. H. W. Parker to place the
emendation Ancistrodon (with same author and date) of the generic name Agkistrodon
Beauvois, 1799, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

Iam of the opinion that in such cases stability and uniformity are served best by strict
recognition of the relevant original spellings. As it is even possible to use arbitrary
combinations of letters, if capable of being pronounced, for scientific names, I feel
there is no justification for the emendation of names for philological reasons, even if
these might be correct.

In the case of the emendation Ancistrodon (by Wagler, 1830) of Agkistrodon, Parker
States quite correctly that the spelling Ancistrodon almost was in general use at the turn
of the century. But when considering the present situation modern usage, beginning
approximately with the year 1907, seems more important than former literature.
There is no difficulty in proving that there is an overwhelming majority of important
herpetologists in the most recent period who correctly use the spelling Agkistrodon.

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL ON ZORILLA BY DR. VAN GELDER
AND THE COUNTER PROPOSAL BY DR. CHINA Z.N.(S.) 758
(see volume 22, pages 278-280)

By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Dr. Richard Van Gelder’s proposal for conservation of the name Zorilla I. Geoffroy,
1826, for the African stinkmuishond, is gratifying. It shows need, however, for
clarification of some technicalities.

1. The type species of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, is Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798 (=
Mustela zorilla E. Geoffroy, 1803), by absolute tautonomy. This name is not a
synonym or a homonym of Viverra zorilla Gmelin (Schreber) as imputed by Holthuis
(1963 : 242) and, it seems, tacitly accepted by Van Gelder. Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier
is explicitly the “‘ putois du Cap ’’, and nothing else.

2. ‘* Viverra zorilla des auteurs systématiques ” cited by I. Geoffroy in the original
description of Zorilla, is not the North American spotted skunk described under that
name by the Germanic authors Schreber, Erxleben, and Gmelin. It is a homonym
or misnomer for the African species as understood and described by I. Geoffroy and
his compatriots, G. Cuvier (1798 : 116), E. Geoffroy (1803 : 102), Desmarest (1818 :
379) and F. Cuvier (1823 : 254, pl. 34, fig. 1; 1829 : 449).

3. Viverra zorilla Schreber, Erxleben and Gmelin, based primarily on the North
American zorille of Buffon, is not and cannot be type of Zorilla I. Geoffroy. Viverra
zorilla Schreber is an objective junior synonym of Viverra mapurito Miiller, 1776
(p. 32), based solely on “ Le zorille, Buff., T. XIII, pl. 41’. This then is the type.
There is no need for a neotype. The type locality, however, may be restricted to
Greensboro, Hale County, Alabama, as proposed by Van Gelder. Specimen no.
5423/4286, American Museum of Natural History, selected by Van Gelder as neotype,
serves the same purpose by being a topotype.

4. Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810, is a subjective synonym of Mustela zorilla G.
Cuvier. It was not included in the original description of Zorilla 1. Geoffroy and
cannot be designated type-species.

5. The alternative to Dr. China’s proposal for suppression of Zorilla I. Geoffroy is
my counter proposal of 1963 published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(p. 243), as follows:

“1. To place the generic name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, with type species Mustela
zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798 [by absolute tautonomy] on the Official List of Generic names
in Zoology (Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, is an available [objective] junior synonym).

“2. To place the specific name Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798, with type, the
putois du Cap of authors, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Ictonyx
capensis Kaup, 1835, is an available junior synonym).”

It is incomprehensible that Dr. Van Gelder should not have taken into account my
previously published comments (see literature cited below) on the subject of Zorilla,
and that my prior application to the Commission for conservation of the name Zorilla
should have been passed over by Dr. China.*

As described in 1826, and shown repeatedly by nearly all mammalogists since then,
Zorilla 1. Geoffroy applies only to the African stinkmuishond. Present confusion
regarding the status of Zorilla I. Geoffroy was largely created by authors who prefer its
junior synonym, Ictonyx Kaup. As a consequence of attempts to present Zorilla as
anything but the valid name for the African mustelid, Dr. China was successively
obliged to (a) drop his demand for Official rejection of the classic work, E. Geoffroy,
1803, ‘‘ Catalogue des mammifeéres . . .”’, (b) retract his request for designation of a
neotype for Viverra zorilla Gmelin, (c) acknowledge the priority of Viverra zorilla
Schreber, and finally, as the result of Van Gelder’s proposal, (d) acknowledge the
validity of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, as the oldest name for the African stinkmuishond.

* [Hershkovitz’s prior application was not passed over. It was set out in China’s history of
the case in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 284, paragraph 3. Editor.]

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75

LITERATURE CITED

CuinaA, W.E. 1962. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 19 : 284-289; 1963, Ibid., 20 : 243; 1965,
Ibid., 22 : 17-18; 1966, Ibid., 22 : 279-280

Cuvigr, F. 1823. Dict. Sci. Nat., 29 : 245-256

Cuvier, G. 1798. Tabl. Elément.

DesMAREST, A. G. 1818. Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., 19 : 364-387

GEOFFROY, E. 1803. Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d’ Histoire

Naturelle, Paris

GeEoFFROY, I. 1826. Dict. Class. Hist. Nat., 10 : 207-216

HERSHKOVITZ, P. 1949. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 62 : 3-16; 1953, J. Mammal.,
34 : 378-382; 1955, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 68 : 185-192; 1963, Bull.
Zool. Nomencl., 20 : 243-244

Ho.tuuts, L. B. 1963. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 20 : 242-243

MULLER, P. L.S. 1776. Linn. Syst. Nat., Suppl.

VAN GELDER, R.G. 1966. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 22 : 275-279

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE GENDER OF NAMES
ENDING IN -OPS. Z.N.(S.) 1572
(see volume 21, pages 212-221)

By Robert G. Wolk (Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, U.S.A.) and Eugene
Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.)

In view of the forthcoming Declaration of change in the Code (Article 30(a)i) on
the matter of the gender of generic names ending in -ops, we should like to call to the
Commission’s attention a single case (and there are certainly others) where the proposed
all-encompassing rule making all genera with this ending of masculine gender would
unnecessarily affect long-standing and correct usage. We refer to the avian genus
Rynchops Linnaeus 1758 treated as feminine by Linnaeus and everyone else.

Rynchops, although ending in -ops, is not derived from the Greek root wt, dps, eye,
face, or of dps, face, voice. The -ops in Rynchops is derived from the Greek xortew,
panto, to cut. The first syllable is from the Greek p‘vyyoc, rhynchos (or rhygchos),
a bill.

The genus Rynchops includes Rynchops nigra Linnaeus 1758 as the type species of
the genus. The species of Rynchops (now usually called skimmers in English) habit-
ually forage for small fish by flying over water with the bill wide open and the mandible,
longer than the maxilla by approximately one-third its length, cutting the water surface.
Because of this food-catching technique, unique among birds, Rynchops nigra had been
called Cut Water by Catesby in 1731 and Rynchopsalia (or Rygchopsalia) by Barrere in
1745—the only names cited by Linnaeus in 1758. Barrere’s name was derived from
rhynchos, a bill, and Yadtc, psalis, to shear or cut with scissors.

Pennant (1781) states that Rynchops as used by Linnaeus derives from koptein, to
cut, although it is not clear whether Linnaeus intended the name as “ rhynchos +
koptein ’’, i.e., cutting bill, or as a shortened version of “‘ rhynchos + psalis ”’, i.e.,
shearing bill. In any event, Linnaeus called the species Rynchops nigra from and after
the 10th Edition of the Systema Naturae, and later authors have never deviated from
the feminine gender.

We favour the adoption of a general rule making genera ending in -ops masculine,
provided an exception is included for cases where usage is clear establishing a different
gender or where the author plainly indicates a different gender. Such an exception
should be included (whatever the general rule) for otherwise many wholly unnecessary
changes will be required creating confusion in the literature. Indeed it would seem
that unless some such exception is included a formal amendment of the Code would
be required.

We suggest the adoption of the following modification of the Declaration voted at
the Washington meeting of the Commission:

“« ,. except in cases where established usage or the unequivocal indication by
the author of the genus shows the genus to have a different gender.”

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTS ON THE ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GRYLLUS
SANGUINIPES FABRICIUS, 1798. Z.N.(S.) 1695
(see volume 22, pages 105-107)

By K. H. L. Key (Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, Australia)

I write to support the substance of the request to the Commission by Kevan and
Vickery. It is much to be regretted that the name sanguinipes was brought into use in
1962, notwithstanding Art. 23(b) of the Code, and notwithstanding that, even before
the 1961 revision of the Code, this name could have been suppressed by the Commission
under its plenary powers. Nevertheless, as Kevan and Vickery explain, even in the
short period since 1962 sanguinipes has come into general use for the economic species
concerned, while the name bil/ituratus, under which it was previously known, had been
current for no longer period, and names current earlier are inapplicable for taxonomic
reasons. Thus only further confusion could result now from rejection of sanguinipes.

However, Kevan and Vickery have clearly misunderstood Art. 23(b). There is no
possibility of ‘‘ a name long in confusion . . . remaining in confusion by the application
of Article 23(b) ’’; nor does the Commission have to “‘set aside’”’ 23(b) in order to
validate sanguinipes. Since it would be unfortunate if such an interpretation of Art.
23(b) were to pass unchallenged, I wish to draw explicit attention to the fact that this
Article requires the Commission to make a decision as to whether a nomen oblitum is to
be rejected or conserved, depending upon which action “ better serves the stability and
universality of nomenclature’. In fact, Kevan and Vickery’s application is wrongly
framed in so far as it requests the Commission to “ set aside” Art 23(b): it should
request the Commission to apply Art. 23(b)—in the sense of placing sanguinipes on the
appropriate Official List. Moreover, it should be noted that such action by the
Commission, being in accordance with the Code and not under suspension of it, does
not invoke the Commission’s plenary powers.

By R. L. Edwards (Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada)

I would like to support the proposals put forward by the authors as the name
sanguinipes appears to have been adopted by most authors on this side of the Atlantic,
and I think even more chaos would result if an attempt were made to change it now.

FURTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF A NEOTYPE
FOR CANCER SETIFERUS L. 1767 (CRUSTACEA DECAPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1617
(see volume 21, pages 227-234)

By Gordon Gunter (Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs,
Mississippi, U.S.A.)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis has answered my objection to his proposal for a neotype for
Cancer setiferus L. 1767. 1am sorry to have to burden the Commission with further
arguments, but some new things have been brought up that deserve comment.!

I shall reply to Doctor Holthuis’ points as he enumerated them (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 (3) : 232-234, 1964).

1 & 2. He says (op. cit., p. 232), ‘‘ As to the type locality of Cancer setiferus, this
is per definition the locality where the type specimen, i.e. Seba’s specimen, was
collected. Of this locality we do not know anything in print or otherwise”. The
statement is incorrect. Seba’s specimen was American as stated in the name of the
animal, and it has always been accepted as such. By the same token Linnaeus had a
right to restrict the type locality and he did by “* in Indiis ”’ in the original description.
I have pointed out previously (Gunter, Gulf Res. Repts. 1 (3), 1962) that Gmelin (Syst.
Nat. 14th ed., 1790) Herbst (1796) and Olivier (1811) variously listed the shrimp from
South America and India, America, and South America. Also Houttuyn (1769, Nat.
Hist. 13 : 434), S. Muller (1775, Natursyst. 5 : 1133), Olivier (1791, Encycl. méth.

1] shall be glad to supply the Commissioners with copies of the initial four papers on this
subject by Doctor Holthuis and me, which he mentioned (Bull. zool. Nomen. 21 (3) : 227)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77

Hist. Nat. 6 : 343), Herbst (1793, Vers. Naturgesh. Krabben Krebse 3 : 106) listed the
species from the same locales. These latter names were supplied by Doctor Holthuis
(op. cit.), who refers to them as “ old handbooks ”’.2 That perjorative description may
be correct, but they were the only writings that have come down to us and they are the
only ones immediately following Linnaeus. None of them mentioned North America,
for the obvious reason that the authors never heard of a penaeid shrimp from there,
and the first to do so was Thomas Say (1817).

In summary six of the ten first writers, including Linnaeus, who mentioned Cancer
setiferus, listed it from South America or the American Indies in a period of 44 years
following the original description. The other four only said America.

Then there followed a more modern era in which Penaeus setiferus was used for the
name of the South American shrimp by H. Milne Edwards (1837), Heller (1865), Bate
(1881), Rathbun (1897, 1900), as I have shown. Those people were working the South
American species and apparently had specimens in hand. Doctor Holthuis (op. cit.)
has added von Martens (1872), von Ihering (1897) and Dofiein (1900) to that list.

During the same time only DeKay (1844), Gibbes (1850) and de Saussure auct.
(1858), Stimpson (1871) and Kingsley (1879) were credited by me as using P. setiferus
for the North American white shrimp up to 1900. Doctor Holthuis has come forward
with additional taxonomic references by Gibbes (1848), Kingsley (1878), Herrick
(1887) and Sharp (1893). These references are to valid taxonomic works, so far as I
know. Various ichthyologists and mere collectors of fishery statistics, who wrote on
fishery statistics, whom he cited are not proper additions to the list.

In summary after and including H. Milne Edwards (1837) eight carcinologists
referred to the South American shrimp as P. setiferus, when having specimens in hand,
During the same period workers with the North American species in hand were seven:
DeKay (1844), Gibbes (1848, 1850), Sharp (1893), R. Rathbun (1883), Herrick (1887),
Kingsley (1878, 1879). De Saussure (1858) and Doflein (1900) presumably had both
species and may be counted neutral. Thus, discounting a few non-taxonomic papers,
the references to the South American shrimp as P. setiferus was about 14 for the South
American species and 8 for the North American before 1900, the latter all after 1848.

In reference to P. setiferus as West Indian and South American none of these extra
references, taxonomic or non-taxonomic, which Doctor Holthuis has brought forth
from his files, changes the situation at all. In fact, they reinforce my position. The
early writers considered Penaeus setiferus to be South American. This is a logical
conclusion which is unavoidable if we are seeking the simple answer and not one which
eats itself to manipulation of names under the Code to bring about pre-determined
ends.

Doctor Holthuis (op. cit.) says it is not proper to use only names before 1900. The
usage before 1900 was given to indicate that of people following Linnaeus, and the
matter of usage since 1900 is not important. The year 1900 is not a bad breaking point
because the next important taxonomic work was that of Burkenroad in the 1930’s,
part of which is under discussion. A fast count shows that I have personally used
P. setiferus for the North American white shrimp a hundred and forty-six times in 21
papers during the past twenty-nine years, but I did not realize the error of my ways
under the Code until five years ago.

I suppose the Commission realizes that this argument comes about because tacitly
everyone has been trying to preserve a Linnaean name. We have swallowed the camel,
Seba’s remarkable figure, a twelve-legged shrimp with claws on each leg, but then when
the evidence becomes clearer and succeeding works refer to the species as being in South
America and the Indies, where Linnaeus said it was, and where it is to be found today,
we are all supposed to go intellectually blind and not know where it was—possibly even
North America—which was not mentioned by authors acquainted with the species
until the time of H. Milne Edwards (1837) seventy years later. Further some doubts,

2Tn his work on the Decapoda of Suriname, Zool. Verhandl. (44) : 1-296, 16 p., 1959,
Doctor Holthuis cites all of the above and 53 other works printed in the 16 and 1700’s ranging
back to 1605. Possibly, he feels that “ old handbooks ” are more valuable for certain Purposes
than others.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

for the purpose of increasing doubt, no doubt, were raised by Burkenroad (1939) as to
whether the Linnaean type were really West Indian or East Indian—the first time in 172
years the question had been raised by any carcinologist. Doctor Holthuis appears to
have corrected me in his item 4 (op. cit. p. 234), and makes the time appear to be 149
years, but for various reasons I consider my estimate to be correct.

Even Doctor Holthuis (Bull. zool. Nomen. 21 (3) : p. 232) admits “I do not deny
the possibility and perhaps even the greater probability that Seba’s specimen belongs
to the southern form, but...’. This has been my whole argument, of course, and I
am glad to see that Doctor Holthuis admits the foot in the door; if he will open it
entirely we can proceed on a logical basis about the proper name of the North and
South American white shrimp.

3. Here Doctor Holthuis suggests selecting Seba’s specimen as a lectotype of P.
fluviatilis Say which would automatically place it as an objective junior synonym of
Cancer setiferus L. He adds other consequences etc. This is exactly the type of
‘“* manipulation ” to which I object. Say selected his own types and they were in the
** Philadelphia Cabinet *” for a long time. He described their locality and no one can
say that Seba’s specimen came from the same area and in fact almost certainly it did not.
There are several reasons why this suggestion for a lectotype is invalid, but I shall not
go into them unless the Commission indicates interest in this strange proposal.

Here I must mention the most significant matter of Say’s use of the word P.
fluviatilis for his species. He evidently knew of the later works using Penaeus and he
evidently saw Seba’s figure, without knowing of Linnaeus 12th ed. of the Systema, but
he came to the same conclusion, namely that it represented a penaeid shrimp. This, it
seems to me, is the best evidence we have that Linnaeus selection of a lectotype was not
too wide of the mark as things went in those days. Two old naturalists, within 50
years of one another came to the same conclusion concerning the “ primitive”
drawing, which we now know could have represented a whole genus.

4. This is a tenuous argument. There was never any finite reference or citation to
Cancer setiferus as being from the East Indies. The situations are not comparable.
When Linnaeus referred to a species listed as Americanus as “ in Indiis * he must have
meant the American Indies. No other conclusion is reasonable.

5. Neotype selections do not have to be validated by the Commission, but by the
same token they are as questionable as erroneous species designations and they have
no validity until ruled upon by the Commission. _I was led astray here by some of my
colleagues who feel that neotypes should only be selected under the most extreme
circumstances. For that reason I have refused up to now to set up a neotype for
P. fluviatilis Say. Other students of crustaceans seem to drop neotypes as a fertile
hen lays eggs.

6. Whether Seba had a “ contact ” in Virginia or not has never been shown to be
apposite to the question.

7. Possibly Seba never visited the West Indies. I have given the information I had,
and I am sure that my informant was sincere. In any case there are records that Seba
had specimens of various crustaceans from Dutch Guiana, within the range of the
southern P. setiferus (Cf. Holthuis, Zool. Verhandl. (44) : 1-296, 16 p., 1959) but
none that he had specimens from Florida or the Gulf States.

8. With regard to Doctor Holthuis’ point 8, page 234, which he divides into Nos.
1 to 5, I shall say the following:

1. Burkenroad’s 1939 paper was not a revisionary work, as Doctor Holthuis says

it is, with regard to the American white shrimp. The revision had been made
in 1936.

2. The type locality of the species as restricted by Linnaeus was the American
Indies and not America. The species was described by Linnaeus and not
by Seba.

3. The two species and their description do not constitute a complex zoological
problem or even a simple one. The whole problem here is taxonomic and
nomenclatural.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79

4. In this item Doctor Holthuis again raises the matter of changing the name of an
important commercial species. I have consistently refused to answer this
charge because it has nothing to do with the question at hand. However,
since Doctor Holthuis is so interested in it, possibly he will explain why he
was willing (Holthuis, 1947, Zool. Med. 27 : 312) to change the name of a
well known fishery penaeid of the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean because
it is “‘ the correct name ” and there “is no reason not to use the name...”.
Again Holthuis (1949, Zool. Verh. : 2, 5-6) changed the well established
name of a species which supports an important prawn fishery in the Indian
Ocean. Doctor Holthuis’ ideas seem to change between the new and old
world, or possibly it is a matter of who does the changing.

5. I consider the remark that Thomas Say confused the two species as badly as any
other workers before 1936 to be inappropriate. It casts reflection where
none is deserved. America was a wilderness at the time Say wrote and it was
less than thirty years away from a war which destroyed a good part of it.
Scholarly works were few and far between. Linnaeus’ works in that day and
time had no particular authority above certain others and in any case, it is
quite probable they were not available to Say. One might as well charge
Mary J. Rathbun and all of the others who came later with having confused
the two species. It is enough to say that everybody confused the two species
without casting aspersion at an old time worker who did marvellously well
considering the conditions under which he worked.

9. It is interesting to see Doctor Holthuis’ explanation of why, in the uniform
application of Penaeus, he goes counter to the Code. The only proper interpretation
of Article 18 is that names under the current Rules will be followed until such time as
they are changed by the Commission. Otherwise this article virtually has a built in
provision that it will be violated at will, which is what Doctor Holthuis has done.
Apparently, he and Mr. Francis Hemming decided that Penaeus names should be
uniform and hoped that the Commission would validate them, which it has not done.
In any case, his adoption of uniformity is not the current usage. In the United States,
where penaeid generic names are probably used more often than elsewhere in print,
some of us went to particular trouble to see to it that the names were used according to
the Code and, in fact, that is one reason that I wrote my article on proper generic
names, etc. (Gunter, Syst. Zool. 6 (2) : 98-100, 1957). The task of bringing about
proper usage was just about accomplished when Holthuis’ paper (Zool. Verhandl.
(44) : 1-296, 1959) came out.

Now the Argentines and Venezuelans seem to be following Holthuis in the use of
Penaeus (Cf. Boschi, 1963, Bol. Instit. Biol. Marina (3) : 1-39, and Davant [1963]
Cuadernos Oceanografico Universidad Oriente (1) : 1-60); the Brazilians seem to be
indeterminate as yet (Cf. Mistikidis and Neiva, Nature 202 (4931) : 471-472, 1964);
while “ current usage ” as determined by the number of papers emanating from North
America continues to follow the Code. Additionally, Burkenroad (Bull. zool.
Nomen. 20 (3) : 170) apparently feels that if the bars are down he has as much right as
anyone to use his own selection, Peneus.

Thus the confusion grows apace. Furthermore, I see no hope that Holthuis’
petition (1962, Bull. zool. Nomen. 19 (2) : 103-5) will be ruled upon by the Commission
unless it is simplified and some of the completely extraneous material is deleted.
Doctor Holthuis’ action is still not valid under the Code and it amounts to brinksman-
ship which did not quite come off; and, unfortunately, it is fit to be listed along with
Burkenroad’s (/oc. cit.) ‘‘ invidiously selected” examples of Doctor Holthuis’ con-
tributions to penaeid nomenclature.

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF VOLUTA EPISCOPALIS
LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1728
(see volume 22, pages 355-356)

By R. Tucker Abbott (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.)

I urge the Commission not to use its plenary powers concerning Voluta mitra vs.
episcopalis. The problem is well-known among present-day mollusk taxonomists and
has been adequately discussed and solved by Dodge (1955), Ray (1954, Mem. Indian
Mus. 14 : 42), and MacNeil (1960, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 339 :91). Contrary to Coan’s
statements, Mitra mitra Linnaeus, 1758, has been used by most workers for the last
20 years. The name episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758, has been considered a synonym of
mitra Linnaeus, 1758, by most workers and in nearly all recent popular books on
conchology: Cernohorsky (1965, Veliger 8:91); Cate and Burch (1964, Veliger
6 : 144); Kuroda, in all his works from 1928 (Cat. Shell-bearing Moll. Amami-Oshima:
54) to 1960 (A Cat. Moll. Okinawa Islands: 35); probably all other Japanese scientific
and popular works (Kira, 1955, Col. Ill. Shells Japan: 68) (Hirase, 1938); McMichael
(1960, Shells Aust. Sea-Shore: 100); Abbott (1962, Sea Shells of the World: 92);
J. Allan (1950, Australian Shells: 178); Macnae and Kalk (1958, Nat. Hist. Inhaca: 128).

The use of Mitra episcopalis Linnaeus has not been entirely abandoned, probably
because of J. Thiele’s 1929 use (Handbuch Syst. Weicht.1 : 340). Popular writers and
other workers using this name are W. F. Webb, Maxwell Smith, Spencer Tinker (1952),
A. Solem (1953, Fieldiana 34 : 224), and R. Platt (Nat’/. Geogr. Mag., July, 1949). I
erroneously used episcopalis in 1950 (Bull. Raffles Mus. 22 : 84), but have used mitra
since studying the arguments of Ray, Dodge and McMichael.

In view of recent modern revisions by Ray (1954) and MacNeil (1960) and others,
and because all of the malacologists of Japan and Australia, and most workers in the
United States, India, New Zealand, England and South Africa are now using Mitra
mitra Linnaeus, I urge that we follow the practise of Linnaeus himself (1764),
Hermannsen (1848), and most of today’s workers in rejecting episcopalis Linnaeus as
a synonym of mitra Linnaeus.

By Walter O. Cernohorsky (Vatukoula, Fiji Islands)

I should like to offer the following comments on this application.

(1) The term Voluta mitra is in the same type face as all other species listed by
Linnaeus in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae; the terms “ episcopalis”’ and
‘* papalis ” are in italics, a type face reserved for varieties of species by Linnaeus. On
page 713 (1758, Syst. Nat.) Linnaeus listed several varieties of Conus ammiralis; from
the type of listing, it is obvious that episcopalis and papalis were treated as varieties of
Voluta mitra, and specific names have precedence over infraspecific names if both date
from the same work.

The omission of a number after Voluta mitra is of little meaning as several specific
names listed in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae lack numbers (e.g. Bulla
cypraea, p. 728; Harpa costatum, p. 738; Strombus dentatus, p. 745, and several others).

(2) Not only did Linnaeus revise his concept of both Voluta mitra and V. papalis in
his 12th edition of the Systema Naturae (1767), where both were regarded as valid
species, but he did so already in 1764 (Mus. Lud. Ulric., 597) where the species was
listed as Voluta mitra. Therefore Linnaeus must be rigidly construed to be his own
first reviser as from 1764.

(3) It is agreed that Voluta mitra Linnaeus, 1758, and V. papalis Linnaeus, 1758,
although both belonging to the genus Mitra R6ding, 1798, are clearly separable taxa.

It is not correct to state that most authors abandoned the nominal species Voluta
mitra, and used the name V. episcopalis consistently. Towards the end of the 18th
century the term Voluta mitra episcopalis sensu Linnaeus (1758) was widely employed,
i.e. Huddersford in Lister (1770, Index 2 : 42), Born, 1780 (Test. Mus. Caes. Vindob.:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81

228), Schréter, 1783 (Einleit. Kenntn. Linné 1 : 230), Favanne, 1784 (Cab. Tour.

d’ Auvergne : 179), Kammerrer, 1786 (Cab. Schwarzb. Rudol.: 144) and others.

The term Voluta mitra has also been widely used, e.g. Born, 1778 (Ind. Rer. Nat.:
217), Knorr, 1779 (Del. Nat.: 38), Herbst, 1778 (Ein/. Kennt. Gewiirme : 193), Hanley,
1858 (psa Linn. Conch.: 231, 232, 508), Hedley, 1909 (as Mitra mitra, Mar. Moll. Qld.
Aust. Assoc. Adv. Sci.: 366), Dautzenberg, 1923 (J. Conchyl. 68 : 31), Dautzenberg &
Bouge, 1923 (J. Conchyl. 67 : 88), and has been used in the combination Mitra mitra
(Linnaeus, 1758) by most subsequent authors after that date.

The species Voluta mitra Linnaeus, and V. papalis Linnaeus, are members of the
genus Mitra Roding, 1798 (Mus. Bolten.: 135), provided that Lichtenstein’s Introduc-
tion on page 6, dating from 10th September 1798, is accepted as the earliest date of
publication. Should this date not be acceptable as the date of publication in absence
of evidence to the contrary, then Mitra Lamarck, 1798 (dating from 21st September,
1798) would have chronological preference.

In view of the foregoing data, the Linnaean taxon Voluta mitra should not be
suppressed, but placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, for the
following reasons:

A. (a) It is listed in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae (1758) as of specific rank,
consistent with all other specific names contained in this work, and has
precedence over V. episcopalis which is listed as of infraspecific rank.

(b) Linnaeus acted as his own reviser in 1764 when he listed Voluta mitra as a
valid species, and in 1767 (12th ed., Syst. Nat.) he reduced V. episcopalis to
a mere variety and considered V. papalis to be a separate species.

(d) The interest of stability of molluscan nomenclature would not be served by a
suppression of Voluta mitra L., as this combination (i.e. Mitra mitra L.) has
been firmly entrenched in molluscan literature for the last 20 years.

B. Voluta episcopalis L. should be regarded as of infraspecific rank or as an
objective synonym in view of the identical bibliographic citations in the 10th
edition of the Systema Naturae.

& Voluta papalis L., should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology as published in the combination Voluta mitra papalis (1758, Syst.
Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 732); an elevation in rank is provided for in the current
Code. The two citations accompanying Linnaeus’ indication (Lister,
Conch., t. 839, fig. 67 and Buonanni, Rec. ment. occ., 3, t. 119) clearly
depict the V. papalis of authors, a species distinct from V. mitra Linnaeus.

By David Heppell (University of Glasgow, Scotland)

While I do not wish to take sides as to whether mitra or episcopalis should be con-
sidered the valid name for the type-species, I would like to request that, since this
matter is now sub judice by the I.C.Z.N., the opportunity be taken at the same time to
place the generic name Mitra on the Official List, and in so doing, to decide once and
for all to which author—RGding or Lamarck—this name should be attributed. The
relevant facts have been published by Cernohorsky, 1965 (The Veliger 8 (2) : 77) and
are, briefly, as follows:

Mitra Lamarck occurs as a caption to plate 369 of the Tableau encyclopédique et
méthodique which is dated, according to the French Republican Calendar “‘ An VI”
which year ended 21 September 1798. In the absence of any other evidence,
Cernohorsky accepts this as the date of publication for Mitra Lamarck.

Mitra Roding occurs on page 135 of the Museum Boltenianum, the title-page of
which is undated. The Introduction, however, is dated 10 September 1798. In the
absence of any other evidence, Cernohorsky accepts this as the earliest date of publica-
tion. Mitra Réding thus has eleven days’ priority over Mitra Lamarck.

Under the provisions of Article 67 (g), Voluta episcopalis L. can be accepted as the
type-species by designation by Montfort, 1810, in either case.

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

AMAUROBIUS PROPOSALS: COMMENT ON THE ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSALS MADE BY FR. CHRYSANTHUS. Z.N.(S.) 1625
(see volume 22, pages 216-217)

By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass., U.S.A.) and Otto Kraus (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

The alternative proposals made by Fr. Chrysanthus do not affect the main purposes
of our original application: the stabilization of important generic names in Arach-
nology. They only deal with a special problem of the specific name of the type-species
of Coelotes Blackwall, 1841.

The situation has already been discussed by us (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22 : 140-141)
and Fr. Chrysanthus (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22 : 216-217). Fr. Chrysanthus favours
the suppression of the name Drassus atropos Walckenaer, 1830, (a) for Walckenaer’s
original concept may well have been different from now established usage, and (b)
because in the past the name afropos has not been universally used in the sense of the
prevailing current use.

The sentence of Fr. Chrysanthus indicating that “‘ Levi and Kraus’s selection of a
specimen of Coelotes saxatilis...to be the neotype of Drassus atropos ... violates
Article 75 (c) .. .” does not have a real basis: we never did select a neotype, we only
made the technical proposal that the Commission should select such a neotype by
means of its plenary powers.

We feel that atropos is such a well-known specific name that its suppression may
lead to confusion. It is one of the old “ classic” names in European Arachnology,
which, up to 1939, has been cited more than 200 times. It is quite normal that, as in
many other cases, the precise interpretation of such an old name is not always clearly
established in older literature; clarity can be achieved by critical lists of synonymy only,
not by the total suppression of such a name. But from O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879,
through Simon, 1939, Locket and Millidge, 1953, up to Wiehle, 1963, there exists an
increasing uniformity in common usage, which also has been adopted in general
literature (e.g. Tretzel, 1961). Thus we strongly favour the stabilization of the name
atropos in its currently adopted sense and by means of a neotype; it is essential to
preserve this now uniformly established usage and avoid changing the name on the
basis of chiefly historical reasons.

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR
AMPLEXIZAPHRENTIS VAUGHAN, 1906 (ANTHOZOA). Z.N.(S.) 1669
(see volume 22, pp. 348-50, 1966)

By M. Mitchell (Geological Survey and Museum, London)

In supporting Dr. Chiranjivi Lal Shrestha’s proposal in this case, I wish to bring
out a number of points not clearly stated in his application.

2. Vaughan (in Matley and Vaughan 1906, p. 315), in proposing the subgeneric
name Amplexi-Zaphrentis without including any species by name, referred to Thomson,
Proc. Phil. Soc. Glasgow, vol. xiv (1882-83) pl. vi, figs. 3, 9, and 13. Under Art. 69a
(ii) (1), however, this does not constitute a reference to the new subgenus, of the nominal
species referred to by Thomson.

3. Vaughan (in Dixon and Vaughan 1911, p. 555) referred the subspecific (or
infrasubspecific) form Caninia aff. cornucopiae Michelin mut. De-3 Vaughan in
Carruthers 1908, p. 169, to Amplexizaphrentis. This cannot be regarded, however, as
an available subspecific name.

4. Lang, Smith and Thomas (1940, p. 16) were in fact the first authors to refer
available nominal species to Amplexizaphrentis in the sense of Art. 69a (ii). The
species so referred were the three implied in Vaughan’s original citation of Thomson

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83

1883, namely “ Zaphrentis bowerbanki Edwards and Haime, Thomson, 1883, p. 368,
pl. vi, fig. 3; Z. edwardsiana de Koninck, Thomson, 1883, p. 367, pl. vi, fig. 9; and Z.
guerangeri Edwards and Haime, Thomson, 1883, p. 367, pl. vi, fig. 13”. They
designated the first of these as the type-species.

5. The nominal species thus designated as the type-species of Amplexizaphrentis is
Zaphrentis bowerbanki Milne Edwards and Haime, 1851, p. 338, and the commission
could place the generic name so defined on the official list without using its plenary
powers. This would, however, cause some disturbance to current usage, as Dr.
Shrestha has pointed out in para. 4 of his application. The first available name for
Z. bowerbanki Thomson non Milne Edwards and Haime, is Z. curvulena Thomson,
1881, (see Hill 1940, p. 142), and I support Dr. Shrestha in asking for this species to be
designated as the type-species under the plenary powers.

6. It may be pointed out that although Vaughan’s original intention was to name
a new subgenus of Zaphrentis, by basing the form on Caninia aff. cornucopiae Michelin
mut. De-s, he in fact erected a junior subjective synonym of Caninia Michelin 1840
(family CYATHOPSIDAE). This action was respected by Carruthers (1908, p. 158), and
by Hudson (1945, p. 197, footnote) who challenged the action of Lang, Smith and
Thomas in effectively transferring the taxon to the family HAPSIPHYLLIDAE. Current
usage, however, follows the course taken by Lang, Smith and Thomas, and stability
would best be served by following this course (see Hill 1956, p. F267; Sutherland 1958,
p. 44).

7. The generic name Zaphrentis and its derivatives have always been treated as
feminine and I ask that if Amplexizaphrentis is placed on the Official List, it be given
this gender.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE

SUTHERLAND, P. K. 1958. Carboniferous stratigraphy and Rugose coral faunas of
Northeastern British Columbia. Geol. Surv. Canada, Memoir 295, 1-177,
pl. 1-33.

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 773

TERGIPES CUVIER, 1805 (GASTROPODA): VALIDATED UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the possibly vernacular usage of the name “ tergipes”” by Cuvier, 1805, is

hereby validated as a generic name;

(b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of

the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:
(i) minimus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Limax minimus;
(ii) dicquemari Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes
dicquemari;
(iii) brochi Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes brochi.

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified ;

(a) Tergipes Cuvier, 1805 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy,

Limax tergipes Forskal, 1775 (Name No. 1711);
(b) Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender : feminine), type-species, by
monotypy, Eolis nana Alder & Hancock, 1842 (Name No. 1712).
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) tergipes Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Limax tergipes
(type-species of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805) (Name No. 2138);

(b) nana Alder & Hancock, 1842, as published in the binomen Eolis nana
(type-species of Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855) (Name No. 2139);

(d) exigua Alder & Hancock, 1848, as published in the binomen Eolis
exigua (Name No. 2141).

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Tergipes Fleming, 1828 (a junior homonym of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805)

(Name No. 1794);
(b) Tergipes Risso, 1818 (a junior homonym of Tergipes Cuvier, 1805)
(Name No. 1795).
(5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified:
(a) minimus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Limax minimus
(as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name
No. 859);

(b) dicquemari Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes dicquemari
(as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name No.
860);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85

(c) brochi Risso, 1818, as published in the binomen Tergipes brochi (as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name No. 861);

(d) neglecta Lovén, 1846, as published in the binomen Aeolis neglecta (an
incorrect spelling for despecta, Eolidia, Johnston, 1835) (Name No.
862);

(e) lacinulata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris lacinulata (a
junior homonym of Jacinulata, Doris, Miller, 1776) (Name No. 863);

(f) picta Alder & Hancock, 1847, as published in the binomen Eolis picta (a
junior objective synonym of pallida, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842)
(Name No. 864);

(g) fasciculata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris fasciculata
(a junior homonym of fasciculata, Doris, Miiller, 1776) (Name No.
865).

(6) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List

of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 (type-genus Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855)
(Name No. 406);

(b) TERGIPEDINAE Bergh, 1889 (type-genus Tergipes Cuvier, 1805) (Name No.
407).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1044)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Henning Lemche in April 1956, and revised by him in 1963. The application
was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 25 March 1964
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 35-39. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to two specialist serials.

The application was supported by Lt. C. L. Collier, Dr. Myra Keen and Dr.
R. Burns. Comments and additional proposals by Mr. D. Heppell were
published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 410-412. An emendation, and a com-
ment on the additional proposals by Dr. Lemche appeared in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 22 : 9 and 10 respectively. A final list of proposals, agreed by Dr.
Lemche and Mr. Heppell, was drawn up and circulated to Commissioners for
voting.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)1 either for or against the
proposals set out on an accompanying sheet. These proposals were drawn
from Dr. Lemche’s original list together with published emendations and
additions by Dr. Lemche and Mr. Heppell. At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Sabrosky,* Jaczewski, Binder, Kraus, Evans,
Forest, Mertens.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. Mr. Sabrosky made
the following comment in returning his vote: “I suggest that in para. 1(a)
‘ probable ’ be changed to ‘ possibly ’. There is no probability either way. I vote
against (1)(b), (4) and (5) because I consistently oppose action on nomina dubia
and junior homonyms are dead without Commission action. The Official Index
should not be inflated with unnecessary entries.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists

and Indexes by the Ruling in the present Opinion:

brochi, Tergipes, Risso, 1818, J. Phys. 87 : 373

Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855, Mon. brit. nud. Moll., App.: xxii

CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934, Brit. Antarct. (Terra Nova) Exp., Nat. Hist. Rept.,
Zool. 7 : 278

dicquemari, Tergipes, Risso, 1818, J. Phys. 87 : 373

exigua, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1848, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1: 192

fasciculata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105

lacinulata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105

minimus, Limax, Forskal, 1775, Descr. Anim.: 100

nana, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 36

neglecta, Aeolis, Lovén, 1846, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl.
1846 : 7

pallida, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 35

picta, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1847, Mon. brit. nud. Moll. (3), fam. 3, pl. 33

TERGIPEDINAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus, Prodr. Faun. Medit. 2 : 209

Tergipes Cuvier, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 6 : 433

Tergipes Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 283

Tergipes Risso, 1818, J. Phys. 87 : 372

tergipes, Limax, Forskal, 1775, Descr. Anim.: 99

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)1 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under
the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 773.

G. OWEN EVANS WwW. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London
2 May 1966

* An affirmative vote in part only. See comment below.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87

OPINION 774

EUBRANCHUS FORBES, 1838 (GASTROPODA): ADDED TO THE
OFFICIAL LIST WITH SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS OF SEVERAL NOMINA DUBIA

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:

(i) the generic name Ethalion Risso, 1826;
(ii) the specific name histrix Otto, 1821, as published in the binomen
Eolidia histrix;
(iii) the specific name hystrix Otto, 1823, as published in the binomen
Eolidia hystrix;
(iv) the specific name ceratentoma Otto, 1821, as published in the
binomen Eolidia ceratentoma;

(b) the specific name farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the
binomen Eolis farrani, is hereby granted precedence over the specific
name alberti Quatrefages, 1844, as published in the binomen Ampho-
rina alberti.

(2) The generic name Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 (gender : masculine), type-

species, by monotypy, Eubranchus tricolor Forbes, 1838, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1713.

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) tricolor Forbes, 1838, as published in the binomen Eubranchus tricolor

(type-species of Eubranchus Forbes, 1838) (Name No. 2142);

(b) farrani Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the binomen Eolis
farrani (granted precedence under the plenary powers over alberti,
Amphorina, Quatrefages, 1844) (Name No. 2143).

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Ethalion Risso, 1826 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a)

above) (Name No. 1796);

(b) Aethalion Herrmannsen, 1846 (an invalid emendation of Ethalion
Risso, 1826) (Name No. 1797).

(5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) histrix Otto, 1821, as published in the binomen Eolidia histrix (as suppres-

sed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 866);

(b) hystrix Otto, 1823, as published in the binomen Eolidia hystrix (as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No.
867);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(c) ceratentoma Otto, 1821, as published in the binomen Eolidia ceratentoma
(as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No.
868);
(d) hystrix Alder & Hancock, 1842, as published in the binomen Eo/is (sic)
hystrix (a junior primary homonym of Eolidia hystrix Otto, 1821)
(Name No. 869);
(e) cerentatoma Pruvot-Fol, 1954, as published in the binomen Eolidia
cerentatoma (an incorrect spelling for Eolidia ceratentoma Otto, 1821)
(Name No. 870).
(6) The family-group name EUBRANCHIDAE Odhner, 1934 (type-genus
Eubranchus Forbes, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 408.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1102)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Henning Lemche in April 1956 and was revised by him in 1963. The applica-
tion was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 25 March
1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 40-44. Public Notice of the possible use of
the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the
other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to two specialist serials.

The proposals were supported by Dr. Myra Keen and Dr. R. Burns. A
counterproposal was made by Mr. David Heppell (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 412-
413) and reaffirmed (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 11-12) after further explanation
by Dr. Lemche (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 10-11).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)2 in Section 1, either for or
against the use of the plenary powers in the present case, and in Section 2, for
either Alternative A (Lemche proposals, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 43-44) or for Alternative B (Heppell proposals—paras. 1 (b) (i), 1 (c)
(i) (ii) (iii), 3 (a), 4 (a) (d), 5 (a) in part, 5 (c) (d) and 6 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 43-44 and paras. 1-3 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 413). At the close of
the prescribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Section 1. Affirmative votes—seventeen (17), received in the following
order: China, Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev,
Uchida, Simpson, do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Binder, Evans,
Forest.

Negative votes—three (3): Sabrosky,* Kraus, Mertens.

Section 2. For Alternative A—six (6): Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Bonnet,
Simpson, Tortonese.

For Alternative B—twelve (12): China, Holthuis, Vokes, Obruchev, Uchida,
do Amaral, Boschma, Sabrosky,* Jaczewski, Binder, Evans, Forest.

* A negative vote in part only. See comment below.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes for Alternative A.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:

Prof. H. E. Vokes (4.ii.66): “ It seems that the better solution would have been
to re-define tricolor as being interpreted on some figure or specimen with
“rounded anterior foot corners *, etc., rather than to initiate all of the confusion
Lemche’s proposal has brought about.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (31.iii.66): “1 vote for Alternative B except for 1 (b)
(1), (c) (i) (ii) (iii), (4) (a) (d) and 5 which I oppose because they involve nomina
dubia.

“The terribly confused zoology and the differences of opinion among
specialists make it abundantly clear, here as elsewhere, that decision on the
basis of usage involves tiresome arguments on what to suppress and leads in the
end to preservation of misidentifications and erroneous concepts. Straight-
forward application of priority is by far the simplest and clearest solution in the
Present case. The resulting synonymy would be as follows (type-species
noted):

Eubranchus Forbes, 1838: tricolor Forbes

=Amphorina Quatrefages, 1844: alberti Quatrefages (same species as
farrani Alder & Hancock)

=Galvina Alder & Hancock, 1855: tricolor Forbes

=Egalvina Odhner, 1929: viridula Bergh, which Lemche finds is a
synonym of tricolor. Lemche worries that arenicola Alder &
Hancock, 1847, might be found to be synonymous with viridula
and therefore threaten stability, but arenicola is junior to tricolor
and thus no threat at all.

“ Heppell’s proposals agree with my position, and I therefore support
Alternative B. I have no objection to plenary powers for farrani over alberti:
indeed, if both were published in the same month in early 1844, it is probable
that an arbitrary decision is necessary to determine which has priority.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Aethalion Herrmannsen, 1846, Indicis Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 22
ceratentoma, Eolidia, Otto, 1821, Consp. Anim. quor. marit. non edit. 1: 9
cerentatoma, Eolidia, Pruvot-Fol, 1954, Faune France 58 : 442
Ethalion Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Europe 4 : 36
EUBRANCHIDAE Odhner, 1934, Brit. Antarct. (Terra Nova) Exp., Nat. Hist. Rep.,
ZOOL 7: 216
Eubranchus Forbes, 1838, Malac. Mon.: 5
farrani, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 164
histrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1821, Consp. Anim. quor. marit. non edit. 1 +: 8
hystrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1823, Nov. Act. Leop. 11 : 277
hystrix, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 35
tricolor, Eubranchus, Forbes, 1838, Malac. Mon.: 5

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)2 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper as Alternative B has
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and the decision so taken, being
the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 774.

G. OWEN EVANS WwW. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London
2 May 1966

COMMENT ON MITRA PERLATA RODING, 1798, AS A NOMEN OBLITUM
Z.N.AS.) 1726
(see volume 22, page 334)

By R. Tucker Abbott (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.)

I do not believe that the Commission needs to declare Mitra perlata Roding, 1798,
as a nomen oblitum. In reality, it is a nomen nudum, since there is no description or
figure reference. Cernohorsky argues that R6ding gave this name to “ Voluta pertusa
Gmelin var.’’, and that since Réding had given the name imperialis to variety gamma,
this meant (by “ the process of elimination ”’) that R6ding’s name perlata should apply
to the only other variety, beta. On the same page, R6ding applied another nomen
nudum (capucina) to “‘ Gmel. Voluta pertusa. sp. 93, varietas ”, so that there is doubt
as to Réding’s intentions.

Réding sometimes applied two names to the same species (or figure reference), and
sometimes gave the same name to entirely different species (or figure references). To
accept or acknowledge a Réding name “ by the process of elimination ” when it has
no description or figure reference would open the door to hundreds of other names
which have been, to date, considered as nomina nuda.

It should be pointed out that Knorr’s vol. 2, pl. 4, fig. 6, leaves much to be desired,
although it may be a smooth elongate form of chrysostoma Broderip, 1836, ustulata
Reeve, 1844, or (according to Dautzenberg, 1935, Mem. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belg.
2 (17) : 63) contracta Swainson, 1821. Should some future worker find a valid name
to Knorr’s figure, I doubt if it could be more than a nomen dubium or species inquirenda.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91

OPINION 775

FACELINA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1855 (GASTROPODA): ADDED TO
THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender :
feminine), type-species, by original designation, Eolidia coronata Forbes &
Goodsir, 1839, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 1714.

(2) The specific name auriculata Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen
Doris auriculata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2144.

(3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Montagua Spence Bate. 1856 (a junior homonym of Montagua Leach

1814) (Name No. 1798);
(b) Montagua Fleming, 1822 (a junior homonym of Montagua, Leach, 1814)
(Name No. 1799).

(4) The family-group name FACELININAE Bergh, 1889 (type-genus Facelina
Alder & Hancock, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 409.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1104)

The present case was presented to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Henning Lemche in April 1956, and revised by him in 1963. The application
was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 25 March 1964
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 48-49. The application was supported by Lt. C. L.
Collier, Dr. Myra Keen, Dr. R. Burns and Mr. D. Heppell.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)4 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 49. At the close of the voting
period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,
Jaczewski, do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Sabrosky,* Binder, Kraus, Evans,
Forest, Mertens.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. In returning his
vote Mr. Sabrosky objected to proposal 3 (b) saying: “‘ I object to dealing with a
crustacean name hidden away in an application, and later an Opinion, dealing

* An affirmative vote in part only. See comment below.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

with a gastropod name. The fate of Montagua Spence Bate, 1856, is totally
irrelevant to the present case, and should not be considered under the ‘ com-
pleteness of Opinion ’ principle.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
auriculata, Doris, Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr.: 229
Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855, Mon. brit. nud. Moll. (7) : app. xxii
FACELININAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus, Prodr. Faun. Med. 2 : 213
Montagua Fleming, 1822, Encycl. Brit. (Suppl. ed. 4-6) 5 : 575
Montagua Spence Bate, 1856, Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 25 (1855) : 57

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)4 were cast as set out above,
that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that
the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is
truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 775.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

2 May 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93

OPINION 776

CRATENA BERGH, 1864 (GASTROPODA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL
LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Cratena Bergh, 1864 (gender : feminine),
type-species, by original designation, Doris peregrina Gmelin, 1791, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number
L715:

(2) The specific name peregrina Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen
Doris peregrina (type-species of Cratena Bergh, 1864) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2145.

(3) The generic name Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877 (a junior objective synonym
of Cratena Bergh, 1864) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1800.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1105)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Henning Lemche in April 1956 and revised by him in 1963. The application
was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 25 March 1964
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 50-51. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers for the suppression of Cratena Bergh was given in the same part
of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution
Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials.

The application to suppress Cratena was opposed by Dr. R. Burns (Buil.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 410) and by Mr. David Heppell (op. cit.: 415) who made a
counterproposal. Mr. Heppell’s proposals were agreed to by Dr. Lemche
(op. cit. 22 : 11) except for para. (1) dealing with CRATENINAE, which is consider-
ed to be a synonym of FAVORININAE.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)5 either for or against the pro-
posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 415, paras. (2)-(4). At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,
do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Binder, Kraus, Evans,
Forest, Mertens.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Cratena Bergh, 1864, K. Danske Vid. Selsk. Skr. Math.-nat. Afd. (5) 7 : 213

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

peregrina, Doris, Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105
Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877, Rend. Acc. Sci. Inst. Bologna 1876-77 : 147

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)5 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 776.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

3 May 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95

OPINION 777

DIAPHOREOLIS IREDALE & O’DONOGHUE, 1923 (GASTROPODA):
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH ADDITION OF
TRINCHESIA THERING, 1879, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law
of Homonymy:

(a) the generic name Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923;

(b) the specific name pennata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen

Doris pennata.

(2) The generic name Trinchesia Ihering, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-
species, by designation by Pruvot-Fol, 1954, Doris caerulea Montagu, 1804, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1716.

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) caerulea Montagu, 1804, as published in the binomen Doris caerulea

(type-species of Trinchesia Ihering, 1879) (Name No. 2146);
(b) aurantia Alder & Hancock, 1842, as published in the binomen Eolis
aurantia (Name No. 2147).
(4) The generic name Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’ Donoghue, 1923 (as suppres-
sed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1801.
(5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :
(a) pennata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris pennata (as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 871);

(b) aurantiaca Alder & Hancock, 1851, as published in the binomen Eolis
aurantiaca (an unjustified emendation of aurantia, Eolis, Alder &
Hancock, 1842) (Name No. 872).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1106)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April 1956
by Dr. Henning Lemche, and was revised by him in 1963. The application was
sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 25 March 1964 in
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 52-55. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other pre-
scribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184)
and to two specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Lt. C. L.
Collier, Dr. Myra Keen and Mr. David Heppell (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 10
and 12).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)6 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 54-55. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—seventeen (17), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis,* Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,
do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Binder, Evans, Forest.

Negative votes—three (3): Sabrosky, Kraus, Mertens.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. The following
comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (31.i.66) *‘ I vote in the affirmative except for para. (1) (a)
and (4).”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (31.iii.66) “‘ At the generic level, there is no basis for
plenary action and the Rules can be applied without attention by the Commis-
sion. Trinchesia Ihering (1879) is clearly shown to apply to the genus-group in
question, with caerulea Montagu as type-species, and no action is needed on that
point. If Diaphoreolis was based on poorly preserved specimens of caerulea,
then it is a junior subjective synonym of Trinchesia and cannot threaten any
possible use of Catriona for aurantia and relatives, should the latter group ever
be regarded as distinct from Trinchesia.

‘Plenary action might be desirable for the specific name pennata but the
brief paragraph 12 (p. 54) gives no justification of importance or common
usage. The application is concerned with the generic name Trinchesia, and the
status of the specific name pennata is a small and irrelevant appendage. Appli-
cations and cases should be kept homogeneous and the title should correctly
reflect the content.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
aurantia, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 9 : 34
aurantiaca, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1851, Mon. brit. nud. Moll., fam. 3, pl. 27
caerulea, Doris, Montagu, 1804, Trans. Linn. Soc. London 7 : 78
Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 202
pennata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105
Trinchesia \hering, 1879, Zool. Anz. 2 : 137

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Trinchesia Thering, 1879: Pruvot-Fol, 1954, Fauna France 58 : 380

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)6 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted

* Affirmative vote in part only. See note below.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97

under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 777.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

4 May 1966

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 778

GODIVA MACNAE, 1954 (GASTROPODA): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL
LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Godiva Macnae, 1954 (gender : feminine),
type-species, by original designation, Hervia quadricolor Barnard, 1927, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1717.

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) quadricolor Barnard, 1927, as published in the binomen Hervia quadri-
color (type-species of Godiva Macnae, 1954) (Name No. 2148);

(b) japonica Baba, 1937, as published in the binomen Cuthona (Hervia)
japonica (Name No. 2149).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1107)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April 1956
by Dr. Henning Lemche and was revised by him in 1963. The application was
sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 25 March 1964 in
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 56-57. The proposals were supported by Lt. C. L.
Collier, Dr. Myra Keen and Mr. David Heppell.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)7 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 57. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,
Jaczewski, do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Binder, Evans, Forest,
Mertens.

Negative votes—one (1): Kraus.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. In returning his
Voting Paper Dr. Kraus made the following comment: “I vote against the
proposal: I cannot agree with the technical way of solving the problem.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Godiva Macnae, 1954, Ann. Natal Mus. 13 : 20
japonica, Cuthona (Hervia), Baba, 1937, J. Dep. Agric. Kyushu Imp. Univ. 5 : 329
quadricolor, Hervia, Barnard, 1927, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 25 : 203

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)7 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 778.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

5 May 1966

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 779

AEOLIDIA CUVIER, 1797 (GASTROPODA): PLACED ON THE
OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 (gender : feminine),
type-species, by designation by Alder & Hancock, 1847, Limax papillosus
Linnaeus, 1761, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 1718.
(2) The specific name papillosus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen
Limax papillosus (type-species of Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2150.
(3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified:
(a) Eolia Cuvier, 1800 (an incorrect spelling for Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (Name
No. 1802);

(b) Eolis Cuvier, 1805 (an incorrect spelling for Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (Name
No. 1803);

(d) Eolida Fleming, 1828 (a junior objective synonym of Aeolidia Cuvier,
1797) (Name No. 1805);

(e) Aeolis Menke, 1844 (an unjustified emendation of Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797)
(Name No. 1806).
(4) The family-group mame AEFOLIDIIDAE (correction of EOLIDIDAE)
d’Orbigny, 1834 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 410.
(5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name
Numbers specified:
(a) EOLIDIDAE d’Orbigny, 1834 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an
incorrect original spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) (Name No. 422);

(b) AEOLIDINA MacGillivray, 1843 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an
incorrect spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) (Name No. 423);

(d) AEOLIDIDAE Bergh, 1870 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an incorrect
spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) (Name No. 425);

(e) AEOLIDAE Locard, 1886 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an incorrect
spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) (Name No. 426);

(f) AEOLIDIADAE Bergh, 1888 (type-genus Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) (an incor-
rect spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE) (Name No. 427).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1097)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April 1956
by Dr. Henning Lemche and revised by him in 1963. The application was sent

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101

to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21: 116-117. The proposals were supported by Dr. Myra
Keen and Lt. C. L. Collier.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)8 either for or against the pro-
posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 116-117. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
AEOLIDAE Locard, 1886, Prodr. Malac. Fr.: 43
Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797, Tabl. Elem. Hist. nat.: 388
AEOLIDIADAE Bergh, 1888, in Semper, Reisen Arch. Philipp., Malac. Unters. 3 : 777
AEOLIDIDAE Bergh, 1870, in Semper, Reisen Arch. Philipp., Malac. Unters. 1: 1
AEOLIDIIDAE d’Orbigny, 1834, Moll. Ech. Foram. Pol. iles Canar.: 34
AEOLIDINA MacGillivray, 1843, Hist. Moll. Anim.: 192
Aeolis Menke, 1844, Z. Malakozool. 1844 : 73
Eolia Cuvier, 1800, Lécons Anat. comp. 1 : 5th table at end
Eolida Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim.: 285
Eolidia Cuvier, 1816, Régne Anim. 2 : 393
EOLIDIDAE d’Orbigny, 1834, an incorrect original spelling for AEOLIDIIDAE q.v.
EOLIDINA Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 166
Eolis Cuvier, 1805, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 6: pl. 61
papillosus, Limax, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed. 2) : 508

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797: Alder & Hancock, 1847, Mon. brit. nud. Moll. (3),

Gen, 12:2

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)8 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 779.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

6 May 1966

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 780

EOLIDINA QUATREFAGES, 1843 (GASTROPODA): SUPPRESSED
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Eolidina
Quatrefages, 1843, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 (gender : feminine), type-species, by
original designation, Eolis glaucoides Alder & Hancock, 1854 (Name
No. 1719);

(b) Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation
by Suter, 1913, Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828 (Name No. 1720).
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) glaucoides Alder & Hancock, 1854, as published in the binomen Eolis
glaucoides (type-species of Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855) (Name No.
2151);

(b) soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828, as published in the binomen Eolida
soemmerringii (type-species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867) (Name No.
2152).

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in

(1) above) (Name No. 1807);
(b) Aeolidina Pruvot-Fol, 1951 (an incorrect spelling for Eolidina Quatre-
fages, 1843) (Name No. 1808).

(5) The specific name sommeringii Suter, 1913, as published in the binomen
Aeolidiella sommeringii (an incorrect spelling for soemmerringii, Eolida, Leuck-
art, 1828) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 873.

(6) The family-group name CALMIDAE Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923 (type-
genus Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 411.

(7) The family-group name EOLIDININAE Pruvot-Fol, 1951 (type-genus
Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843) (invalid because the name of the type-genus has
been suppressed under the plenary powers) is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 428.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1098)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April
1956 by Dr. Henning Lemche and revised by him in 1963. The application
was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103

in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 118-119. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr.
Myra Keen and Lt. C. L. Collier.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)9 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 119. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists

and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867, Vid. Medd. Dansk. Naturh. Foren. 1866 : 99
Aeolidina Pruvot-Fol, 1951, Arch. Zool. exper. gén. 88 : 2
Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855, Mon. brit. nud. Moll. (7), App.: xxi
CALMIDAE Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 15 : 200
Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843, Ann. Sci. nat. (Zool.), Paris (2) 19 : 276
EOLIDININAE Pruvot-Fol, 1951, Arch. Zool. exper. gén. 88 : 54
glaucoides, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1854, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 14 : 104
soemmerringii, Eolida, Leuckart, 1828, Breves Anim.: 16
sommeringii, Aeolidiella, Suter, 1913, Man. N. Z. Moll.: 581

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 : Suter, 1913, Man. N. Z. Moll.: 581

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)9 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 780.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

6 May 1966

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 781

FLABELLINA VOIGT, 1834 (GASTROPODA): PLACED ON THE
OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) Flabellina Voigt, 1834 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy,
Doris affinis Gmelin, 1791 (Name No. 1721);

(b) Coryphella M. E. Gray, 1850 (gender : feminine), type-species, by
designation by Alder & Hancock, 1855, Eolis rufibranchialis Johnston,
1832 (Name No. 1722).

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) affinis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Doris affinis (type-
species of Flabellina Voigt, 1834) (Name No. 2153);

(b) verrucosa Sars, 1829, as published in the binomen Eolidia verrucosa
(Name No. 2154).

(3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Flabellina d’Orbigny, 1839 (a junior homonym of Flabellina Voigt, 1834)

(Name No. 1809);

(b) Flabellina Cuvier, 1830 (a cheironym) (Name No. 1810);

(d) Flabellina de Gregorio, 1930 (a junior homonym of Flabellina Voigt,
1834) (Name No. 1812).

(4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List

of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) FLABELLININAE Bergh, 1889 (type-genus Fiabellina Voigt, 1834) (a name
selected by Thiele, 1931, as first reviser, in preference to CORY-
PHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889) (Name No. 412);

(b) CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889 (type-genus Coryphella Gray, 1850) (for use
by those zoologists who consider CORYPHELLIDAE as a taxon distinct
from FLABELLINIDAE Bergh, 1889) (Name No. 413).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1099)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April
1956 by Dr. Henning Lemche and was revised by him in 1963. Dr. Lemche’s
application was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 23
April 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 120-122. The proposals were supported
by Dr. Myra Keen and Lt. C. L. Collier.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)10 either for or against the

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105

proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 121-122. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
affinis, Doris, Gmelin, 1791, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3105
Coryphella Gray, 1850, Figs. moll. Anim. 4 : 109
CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus, Prodr. Fauna Med. 2 : 211
Flabellina Cuvier, 1830 [Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 3 : 55]
Flabellina de Gregorio, 1930, Ann. géol. Paléont. Palermo 52 : 33
Flabellina Levinsen, 1902, Vid. Medd. Dansk. Naturh. Foren.: 21
Flabellina d’Orbigny, 1839, in Sagra, Hist. nat. Ile Cuba: 42
Flabellina Voigt, 1834, Das Thierreich 3 : 124
FLABELLININAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus, Prodr. Fauna Med. 2 : 215
verrucosa, Eolidia, M. Sars, 1829, Bidr. Soedyr. Naturh.: 9
The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Coryphella Gray, 1850 : Alder & Hancock, 1855, Mon. brit. nud. Moll.
(7), App.: xxii
The following is the original reference to a first reviser concerned in the
present Ruling:
For FLABELLININAE Bergh, 1889 : Thiele, 1931, Handb. Syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 451

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)10 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 781.

G. OWEN EVANS WwW. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

9 May 1966

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 782

EMBLETONIA ALDER & HANCOCK, 1851 (GASTROPODA):
VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Pterochilus
Alder & Hancock, 1844, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (gender : feminine)
type-species, by monotypy, Pterochilus pulcher Alder & Hancock, 1844, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1723.

(3) The specific name pulcher Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the
binomen Pterochilus pulcher (type-species of Embletonia Alder & Hancock,
1851) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2155.

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844 (as suppressed under the plenary

powers in (1) above) (Name No. 1813);

(b) Diplocera Blanchard, 1848 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 1814).

(5) The specific name veranyi Blanchard, 1848, as published in the binomen
Diplocera veranyi (a nomen nudum) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 874.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1100)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April
1956 by Dr. Henning Lemche and was revised by him in 1963. The application
was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964 in
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 123-124. Public Notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b;
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. The proposals were
supported by Dr. Myra Keen and Lt. C. L. Collier.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)11 either for or against the pro-
posals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 124. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,
Jaczewski, do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Binder, Evans, Forest.

Negative votes—two (2): Kraus, Mertens.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Diplocera Blanchard, 1848, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (3) 9 : 187
Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851, Mon. brit. nud. Moll. (5), fam. 3, genus 14
Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 329
pulcher, Pterochilus, Alder & Hancock, 1844, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 329
veranyi, Diplocera, Blanchard, 1848, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (3) 9 : 187

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)11 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 782.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

10 May 1966

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 783

FOUR NUDIBRANCH GASTROPODA GENERA: PLACED ON THE
OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Numbers specified:
(a) Cumanotus Odhner, 1907 (gender : masculine), type-species, by mono-
typy, Cumanotus laticeps Odhner, 1907 (Name No. 1724);

(b) Cuthonella Bergh, 1884 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy,
Cuthonella abyssicola Bergh, 1884 (Name No. 1725);

(c) Favorinus M. E. Gray, 1850 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
monotypy, Eolis alba Alder & Hancock, 1844 (Name No. 1726);

(d) Precuthona Odhner, 1929 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono-
typy, Eolis peachii Alder & Hancock, 1848 (Name No. 1727).
(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) beaumonti Eliot, 1906, as published in the binomen Coryphella beaumonti
(Name No. 2156);

(b) abyssicola Bergh, 1884, as published in the binomen Cuthonella abyssicola
(type-species of Cuthonella Bergh, 1884) (Name No. 2157);

(d) peachii Alder & Hancock, 1848, as published in the binomen Eolis
peachii (type-species of Precuthona Odhner, 1929) (Name No. 2159).

(3) The specific name alba Alder & Hancock, 1844, as published in the
binomen Eolis alba (a junior primary homonym of alba, Eolis, Van Hasselt,
1824) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 875.

(4) The family-group name FAVORININAE Bergh, 1889 (type-genus Favorinus
Gray, 1850) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 414.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1108)

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 25 January 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)12 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 125-126. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 25 April 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109

Affirmative votes—sixteen (16), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Mayr, Lemche, Stoll, Vokes, Bonnet, Obruchev, Uchida, Simpson,
Jaczewski, do Amaral, Boschma, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Evans.

Negative votes—three (3): Binder, Kraus, Mertens.

Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Forest, Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Drs. Alvarado and Brinck returned late affirmative votes. In returning
his Voting Paper Dr. Kraus made the following comment: “‘I vote against the
proposal as the author of the application expressly states that there are no
nomenclatorial problems in relation to the names involved. So I cannot see
any reason for action by the Commission. ”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official

Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:

abyssicola, Cuthonella, Bergh, 1884, Rep. Voy. “‘ Challenger” (Zool.) 26 : 24,
pl. 10, figs. 1-2, pl. 11, fig. 2, pl. 12, figs. 9-13

alba, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 : 164

beaumonti, Coryphella, Eliot, 1906, J. mar. biol. Assoc. U.K. 7 : 361

branchialis, Doris, Rathke, 1806, in Miiller, Zool. Dan. (ed. 3) 4 : 33, Tab. 149,
figs. 5-7.

Cumanotus Odhner, 1907, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 41 (4) : 26, 29, 101,
text-figs. 2-4

Cuthonella Bergh, 1884, Rep. Voy. “‘ Challenger” (Zool.) 26 : 23

FAVORININAE Bergh, 1889, in Carus, Prodr. Fauna Medit. 2 : 212

Favorinus Gray, 1850, Figs. Moll. Anim. 4 : 109

peachii, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1848, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1: 191

Precuthona Odhner, 1929, Tromsé Mus. Arsh. 50 (1) : 16

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)12 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 783.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

16 May 1966

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF THE NEOTYPE CONCEPT Z.N.(S.) 1571
By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum, Natural History)

The International Code (Article 75) envisages only two contingencies in
which designation of a neotype is permitted, viz. as a result of Joss or of destruc-
tion of the holotype, lectotype or syntypes. Recently, Cox (1960, Bull. zool.
Nomencl., 17 (6-8) : 162) proposed a third contingency, viz. when syntypical
material exists but “‘ cannot be identified with certainty.” No decision has yet
been taken on this by the International Commission.

Following Cox, Lockett (1965, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (13) 7 : 257-278) used
this extension of the neotype concept in order to designate neotypes amongst
the specimens of spiders in the Pickard Cambridge Collection. The propriety
of Lockett’s action is open to question, but the circumstances left little alterna-
tive.

The problems of the Pickard Cambridge Collection parallel those recently
encountered in an examination of the types of elopoid and clupeoid fishes in the
Bleeker collections in Leiden and London (Whitehead, Boeseman & Wheeler,
Zool. Verhandl. Leiden—in press). Like Pickard Cambridge, Bleeker often
placed later, non-typical material in the jars already containing types. Although
he very often specified the number of fishes collected on each occasion and the
range of their total lengths, subsequent re-sorting and removal of deteriorating
specimens has frequently rendered it impossible to distinguish typical from non-
typical material. Plainly, from a calculation of total numbers of specimens
collected, some or even all the syntypes are still present; under the present rules
a neotype cannot, therefore, be designated.

The International Code (Article 74) rightly insists that a lectotype must be
chosen from amongst syntypical material. In the case of the Bleeker collection,
as with the Pickard Cambridge Collection, there is often serious doubt whether
a particular specimen, which is otherwise suitable for designation as a lectotype,
is in fact one of the original syntypes. Thus the likelihood of choosing a
syntype as a lectotype may depend on the proportion of typical to non-typical
specimens calculated or known to be extant, and the chances of success may be
as low as one in ten or less; under the present rules a lectotype cannot be desig-
nated with confidence.

In these circumstances, neither a neotype nor a lectotype designation is
permissible if the rules are strictly adhered to. I believe that it would be prefer-
able to modify the rules to cover such contingencies, rather than to allow a
looser interpretation of the rules which might later be open to abuse. To
overcome the present contradiction, a modification is possible either to the rule
governing designation of lectotypes (Article 74), or to that governing designation
of neotypes (Article 75).

I consider that it is preferable to extend the neotype concept, rather than the
lectotype concept, to include probable syntypical material because,

1. A lectotype can be designated by any zoologist, regardless of his knowledge

of either the collection or the species involved.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111

(a) such freedom of action is not open to abuse because only a syntype
can be chosen.

(b) such freedom of action is desirable because it greatly facilitates
solution of many minor systematic and curatorial problems.

2. A neotype designation, on the other hand, is rigorously controlled and
must, by implication, be justified through revisory work.

(a) such restriction of action enables other zoologists to assess the
wisdom of the choice.

(b) such restriction of action promotes some confidence in the value of
neotypes.

3. The selection of a type from mixed or doubtful material requires some
knowledge of the collection and of the taxonomy of the species
concerned. Such knowledge need not be made evident (nor need it
exist) if the designation is to be one of lectotype. But as a neotype
designation, the basis of the choice must be fully stated.

I propose, therefore, the following substitute for Article 75. These modifi-
cations (in italics here) more clearly define the circumstances necessitating them
than does Cox’s modification.

** Neotypes.—Subject to the following limitations and conditions, a zoologist
may designate another specimen to serve as ‘ neotype’ of a species if,
through loss or destruction, no holotype, lectotype or syntype exists,
or if, through combination with subsequent non-typical specimens, the
syntypical material is no longer recognizable as such’.

The following amendments are necessary in the remaining provisions of

Article 75.

—Section (a) (i). to end of sentence add “or, in the case of syntypes, none
are recognizable as such”’.

—Section (c) (3). substitute “the author’s reasons for believing all of the
original type material to be lost or destroyed, or not recognizable as such,
and the steps that have been taken to trace it ”.

COMMENT ON WHITEHEAD’S PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE
NEOTYPE CONCEPT

By M. Boeseman (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Histoire, Leiden)

To the outline of the problem at issue, as adequately put forward by Mr.
Whitehead, little need be added. However, while agreeing that some regulations
for the considered circumstances may be of interest, I am inclined to disagree
with the solution and the argument which Mr. Whitehead provides.

I consider it preferable to extend the lectotype (or syntype) concept, rather
than the neotype concept, to include probable syntypical material because,

1. The differences between the designations of lectotypes and neotypes are not
as extreme as Mr. Whitehead presumes. Though any zoologist,
regardless of his knowledge of either the collection or the species
involved, may indicate lectotypes (Article 74), experience hitherto has
shown that this has almost invariably been done by accomplished

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

specialists. We usually have to accept the syntypical status of a
lectotype, though the possibility of errors is never precluded. Even
the most careful taxonomist often has to trust old or inadequate
labels or registers, or circumstantial evidence, as sole proof for
(syn)typical status, and therefore is liable to make mistakes. Or, the
verification of homogeneity of presumed syntypical or partly (syn)-
typical material requires at least some experience in taxonomic
research. In fact, the usual confidence in the syntypical status of
lectotypical specimens is mostly based on the absence of a possibility
for verification, and the extant procedure is open to abuse. Therefore,
the selection of a lectotype is just as much the task of a competent
specialist as the selection of a neotype. Considering general practice,
(a) the freedom of action for designation by any zoologist is seldom
if ever exerted.

(b) this freedom of action seems moreover of little importance as
usually only specialists try to solve minor systematic and
curatorial problems.

2. While a neotype designation may (theoretically) be more rigorously
controlled, and justified by revisory work, practice is often different.
It seems important to point out here that the words “ revisory work ”
are open to various interpretations. The principal difference between
lectotype designation and neotype designation seems to be the require-
ment for neotype designation to be “necessary in the interest of
stability of nomenclature”, a requirement also open to various
interpretations. Therefore,

(a) the restriction of action is of moderate importance, considering
general usage.

(b) such restriction hardly promotes more confidence in the value of
neotypes than in the value of lectotypes.

3. As in the selection of a type from mixed or doubtful material, the selec-
tions of neotypes and of lectotypes require adequate knowledge of
the collection and of the species or group concerned.

To this critical review of Mr. Whitehead’s arguments, the following may be

added:

4. Considering the selection of a type from mixed or doubtful material,
and the selection from syntypical material (of which the syntypical
status may be based on unreliable information, see 1), there seems to be
at most a difference in degree of reliability, but no differences in prin-
ciple. Therefore, it seems advisable to designate the selected specimen
from mixed or doubtful material as a lectotype, as may be sustained by
the consideration that
(a) the lectotype concept as it stands could already include the pos-

sibility to select a lectotype from doubtful or mixed material.
The author of the designation, when choosing a specimen in
adequate agreement with the original description, is favoured by
the benefit of doubt, though restricted by his responsibility.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113

(b) the hazard of selecting as a lectotype from mixed or doubtful
material a non-typical specimen, whatever the odds numerically,
is greatly diminished by the required careful comparison of the
specimen with the original description.

(c) the chances that a lectotype selected from mixed or doubtful
material will ever be contested are negligible or, at least, will not
surpass in frequency the erroneous lectotype selections in normal
procedure.

(d) while the correction of erroneous neotype designations requires a
troublesome procedure, no such difficulties exist for a correction
of erroneous lectotype designations (Article 74 (a) (i)).

(e) while a neotype designation is only warranted when necessary in
the interest of stability of nomenclature, no such rigorous and
ambiguous restriction exists for the designation of a lectotype.

Therefore, I propose that

(a) the lectotype concept as it stands is tacitly accepted to include already
facilities for the indication of lectotypes from mixed or doubtful
material.

(b) to Article 74. Lectotypes be added: (a) (ii) In case of designation of a
lectotype from mixed or doubtfully syntypical material, this designa-
tion is valid only if accompanied by the available data on the circum-
stances and the arguments for the actual choice.

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

BRYAXIS KUGELANN, 1794 AND BYTHINUS LEACH 1817 (INSECTA,
COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST IN
THEIR ORIGINAL SENSE. Z.N.(S.) 1642

By Claude Besuchet (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle de Geneve, Switzerland)

The object of this application is to assure to the generic names Bryaxis
Kugelann, 1794 and Bythinus Leach 1817 the sense originally given to them.

1. Kugelann (1794, N. Mag. Lieb. Ent. von Schneider 1 (5) : 580-582)
described the genus Bryaxis and the species schneideri for a Pselaphid found in
eastern Prussia. He used, almost exactly, the same descriptions several years
later (in Illiger, 1798, Verzeichn. Kaf. Preussens : 293-294) using in addition a
small diagnosis in latin, showing that he regarded Bryaxis as masculine.

2. Leach (1817, Zool. Miscell., London 3 : 81, 85 and 1826, Zool. Journ.,
London 2 : 450) who was probably unaware of the work of Kugelann, described
a genus Bryaxis also belonging to the family Pselaphidae using it as a feminine
name. In the second work Leach restricted his genus Bryaxis to two species
longicornis Leach and sanguinea Reichenbach.

3. Leach also described in the above mentioned works, the genera Bythinus
(1817 : 80, 82; 1826 : 446) and Arcopagus (1817 : 80, 83; 1826 : 447). The
first was proposed for the species securiger Reichenbach and curtisi Leach, the
second for the species glabricollis Reichenbach, clavicornis Panzer and bulbifer
Reichenbach.

Westwood (1838, Synopsis Genera Brit. Ins.:21) validly designated
securiger Reichenbach as type-species of the genus Bythinus Leach and bulbifer
Reichenbach as the type-species of the genus Arcopagus Leach.

4. During the second half of the 19th century, all authors employed the name
Bryaxis as feminine and in the sense given by Leach, but attributing it sometimes
to Kugelann. Arcopagus Leach has fallen as a synonym of Bythinus Leach a
name under which many palaearctic species have been described.

5. Raffray (1904, Ann. Soc. ent. France, 73 : 108) regarded the genera
Bryaxis Kugelann and Bythinus Leach as identical and sank Bythinus as a syno-
nym of Bryaxis Kugelann. He replaced Bryaxis Leach, 1817, by its objective
synonym Rybaxis Saulcy, 1876. He employed Bryaxis Kugelann as a feminine
genus. Raffray did not know of the second (1798) description made by Kuge-
lann.

This nomenclature was used by Raffray in three very important works; in
his “‘ Genera et catalogue des Psélaphides ” (1903, Ann. Soc. ent. France 72 :
484-604; 1904, 73 : 1-476 and 635-658), in Wytsman’s Genera Insectorum
(1908, fasc. 64 : 487 pp.) and in Junk’s Coleopterorum Catalogus (1911, part
27 : 222 pp.). He himself described several new species under the name Bryaxis
Kugelann, and Rybaxis Saulcy and deemed it necessary to separate under a new
genus Bolbobythus (1904 : 255) several Bythinus species belonging to the
securiger group. This upsetting of the nomenclature of the Pselaphides is
adopted by all American and Australian authors but has not been accepted by
almost all European authors, probably influenced by Seidlitz. The latter

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115

(1907, Wien. ent. Ztg. 26 : 31-34) was strongly opposed to the change made by
Raffray in trying to show that the descriptions of Kugelann applied not to a
Pselaphid but to a Scydmenid!

6. Jeannel (1950, Faune de France 53: 215) has shown that the names
Bythinus Leach and Bolbobythus Raffray are synonyms, both being defined by
the type-species Pselaphus securiger Reichenbach. He consequently sank
Bolbobythus Raffray as a synonym of Bythinus Leach. In his opinion, priority
could not be given (p. 280-281) to Bryaxis Kugelann and he kept the name
Bryaxis Leach and used the name Arcopagus Leach for those Pselaphids
commonly named Bythinus. Jeannel used this nomenclature in two important
works : “ Coléoptéres Psélaphides ” (1950, Faune de France 53 : 421 pp.) and
“ Les Psélaphides de l’Afrique du Nord ” (1956, Mém. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris,
Sér. A. 14 : 233 pp.). He himself described three new species of Arcopagus.
This last name has been adopted by several european authors, but others have
thought it preferable to keep the name Bythinus justified by usage, while the
Americans supported by the English have kept to the nomenclature employed
by Raffray.

7. I myself (1958, Mitt. Schweiz. ent. Ges. 31 : 65-69) have carefully recon-
sidered the whole question in the hope of putting an end to this confusion. I
have shown that the descriptions of Kugelann easily permit the identification of
Bryaxis schneideri Kugelann as the species commonly named Bythinus bulbifer
Reichenbach and that Jeannel, for this reason, had no right to refuse priority to
Bryaxis Kugelann; that this name should be employed in the masculine; that
the names Bryaxis Kugelann and Arcopagus Leach are synonyms, both being
based on the same type-species, bulbifer Reichenbach—schneideri Kugelann;
that the names Bythinus Leach and Bolbobythus Raffray are objective synonyms
since they are both defined by the same type-species Pselaphus securiger Reichen-
bach; finally that the name Bryaxis Leach should be replaced by its synonym,
Rybaxis Saulcy.

I have described during the last few years, seventeen new species under the
name Bryaxis Kugelann and two under the name Bythinus Leach. I have been
followed by several colleagues and Jeannel himself has adopted my point of view
in two important works, “ Revision des Psélaphides du Japon” (1958, Mém.
Mus. Hist. nat., Paris, Sér. A, 18 : 138 pp.) and “‘ Revision des Psélaphides de
P’Afrique intertropicale ’’ (1959, Ann. Mus. Congo belge, Tervuren, Sc. Zool.
75 : 742 pp.), and in describing seven new species of Bryaxis Kugelann. But
uniformity in nomenclature has not yet been realized.

8. Since stability and universality of nomenclature for Bryaxis Kugelann
= Arcopagus Leach = Bythinus auct. (220 palaearctic species), Bythinus Leach =
Bolbobythus Raffray (20 western palaearctic species) and Rybaxis Sauley =
Bryaxis Leach (87 Australian, Oriental, Ethiopian and holarctic species),
ceased to exist after 1904, the strict law of priority must be used. _ Besides it is
the solution adopted by the majority of specialists and that which allows us
better to avoid fresh confusion.

9. The International Commission is, therefore, requested :

(1) to use its plenary powers;

(a) to suppress the specific name schneideri Kugelann, 1794, as published

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in the binomen Bryaxis schneideri, for the purposes of the law of
priority but not for those of the law of homonymy;
(b) to designate its subjective synonym Pselaphus bulbifer Reichenbach,
1816, as type-species of Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794;
(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology :
(a) Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Pselaphus
bulbifer Reichenbach, 1816;
(b) Bythinus Leach, 1817 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa-
tion by Westwood, 1838, Pselaphus securiger Reichenbach, 1816;
(c) Rybaxis Saulcy 1876 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa-
tion by Jeannel, 1950, Pselaphus sanguineus Reichenbach, 1816;
(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology :
(a) bulbifer Reichenbach, 1816, as published in the binomen Pselaphus
bulbifer (type-species of Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794);
(b) securiger Reichenbach, 1816, as published in the binomen Pselaphus
securiger (type-species of Bythinus Leach, 1817);
(c) sanguineus Reichenbach, 1816, as published in the binomen Pselaphus
sanguineus (type-species of Rybaxis Saulcy, 1876);
(4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :
(a) Bryaxis Leach, 1817 (a junior homonym of Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794);
(b) Arcopagus Leach, 1817 (a junior objective synonym of Bryaxis
Kugelann, 1794);
(c) Bolbobythus Raffray, 1904 (a junior objective synonym of Bythinus
Leach, 1817);
(5) to place Bryaxis schneideri Kugelann, 1794, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117

MEGALICHTHYS AND RHIZODUS (PISCES, RHIPIDISTIA):
PROPOSAL FOR THE STABILIZATION OF THESE GENERIC NAMES.
Z.N.(S.) 1690

By Keith Stewart Thomson (Department of Zoology, University College London)

Recent studies on the relationships of rhipidistian fishes (e.g. Thomson,
Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard, 131 : 285-312) have made necessary a request
for formal stabilization of the common usage of the generic names Megalichthys
and Rhizodus.

1. The genus Megalichthys was named by Agassiz (Agassiz in Hibbert,
1835, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 13 : 169-282) for remains of a large “‘sauroid”
fish that had been discovered in the Carboniferous limestone quarry at
Burdiehouse near Edinburgh. The remains of this “large fish”? had been
mentioned in several contexts (such as Hibbert’s report to the Geological
Section of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1834,
published 1835, and in Agassiz’s address to the same meetings). But these
instances do not constitute definite “‘indication”’ in the sense of the 1961
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Hibbert’s was the first
scientific account and the first proper description.

The remains consisted of some large teeth, some smaller teeth, and scales of
assorted sizes. These specimens had been shown, during the 1834 British
Association meetings, to Agassiz who was then in Great Britain collecting
material for his “‘ Poissons Fossiles”. At the time there was much con-
troversy in scientific circles about whether such remains were sauroid (i.e.
resembling reptiles) or saurian (actually pertaining to reptiles). Agassiz and
Buckland decided to settle the matter and, subsequently visiting various public
museums in England, they found in the Leeds Museum a rather complete head
and partial trunk (now in the British Museum (Natural History), no. P.42516)
of a sauroid fish from the Yorkshire coalfields. This, they decided, was
identical with the Burdiehouse material. The problem of the nature of the
Burdiehouse remains was thus solved and “.. . after M. Agassiz had . . . estab-
lished that these teeth and certain other osseous remains of Burdiehouse
belonged to a sauroid fish . . . he considered it as a new genus to which he gave
the name Megalichthys; and to the species found at Burdiehouse he added the
name of Megalichthys hibberti.”’ (Hibbert, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 13: 202).

2. Fleming in October 1835 (some eight months after Hibbert’s description,
above) described some remains of Megalichthys hibberti (now in Royal Scottish
Museum, Edinburgh, no. 1950.38.58) under the name of Ichthyolithus clack-
manensis (Edinburgh New Philos. Jour. 191 : 314-316).

3. In 1837 Sir Philip Egerton (A systematic and stratigraphic catalogue of
the fossil fishes in the cabinets of Lord Cole and Sir Philip Grey Egerton ...
Revised Edition, London. 20 pp.) uses the name Holoptychius hibberti in
addition to the name Megalichthys hibbertii* for specimens in his possession

* The spelling of the specific name /hibberti or hibbertii seems to have varied with the
preference of the author.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

from Burdiehouse. Egerton cites as his authority for the former ‘“‘ Agassiz
mss.” Also in 1837, Buckland (Geology and mineralogy considered with
reference to natural theology. London, 2 vols., 552 pp.) uses the names
Holoptychus} and Megalichthys and the authority for this, although not stated,
was probably also “‘ Agassiz mss.” since most of Agassiz’s friends in Britain
seem to have had access to Agassiz’s notes and intentions in advance of
publication.

Buckland, however, has confused the picture somewhat: in the text of his
work (1837, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 275) he states that “‘ plate 27, figures 11, 12, 13,
14, represent teeth from ... the fishes ... referred by M. Agassiz to a new
genus Megalichthys.” In the explanation of the plates appearing in volume
two of the same work Buckland states that “ plate 27, figures, 11, 13, 14” are
Holoptychus hibberti and “ figure 12” is Megalichthys hibberti (p. 43). The
acknowledged source of the figures is Hibbert’s 1835 treatise.

4. Whatever the reason for this confusion, and regardless of what meaning
Buckland actually intended to convey, the fact remains that someone, probably
Agassiz himself, had recognized that the Burdiehouse remains represented two
different fishes (of which one corresponded with the specimen then in the
Leeds Museum). In 1840 Owen (Odontography, London, 2 vols., 655 pp.)
made this distinction formal by applying to the larger teeth from Burdiehouse
the new generic name Rhizodus. But Owen states that the new genus Rhizodus
is named to replace Holoptychius hibberti Agassiz, and presumably, since Owen
did not name a type-species of Rhizodus, he assumed that it would simply take
over specific name of “ Holoptychius” hibberti Agassiz. Unfortunately,
Owen’s authority for the latter name must have been an unpublished Agassiz
manuscript for the name does not appear in “‘ Poisson Fossiles”’ until 1843,
when Agassiz merely cites the names, in a list, as “‘ Holoptychius hibberti Owen
(Rhizodus), Burdiehouse.” The specimens concerned are the large teeth and
scales from Burdiehouse (figured by Hibbert and Buckland) as well as the
specimen figured by Owen (locality unknown).

5. Agassiz finally (Récherches sur les Poissons Fossiles, volume 2, 310 pp.
1843) described the Leeds specimen (and other material which he considered to
belong to a second species M. falcatus), but he did not mention whether or not
he still considered any of the Burdiehouse material to belong to the genus
Megalichthys. In fact he only states that “ on en a découvert dans le pays de
Galles, dans les environs de Manchester, prés de Stafford et dans les environs
de Glasgow.” This list may by no means be considered complete since the
actual specimen Agassiz was describing came from Yorkshire.

6. In 1853 Owen (Q.J. Geol. Soc. London 9 : 67-70) described as a new
amphibian, Parabatrachus colei, a specimen which later (Young, 1868, Trans.
Nat. Hist. Soc. Glasgow (N.S.) 1 : 174-176) was shown to be the maxilla of
Megalichthys hibberti (sensu Agassiz).

7. M’Coy (1855 in Sedgwick and M’Coy, The British Palaeozoic Rocks and
Fossils, Cambridge, 661 pp.) seems to have been the first to realize the anomaly
in the nomenclature of Rhizodus and Megalichthys. He noted that, in dis-

+ Apparently a misprint for Holoptychius.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119

regard of the facts of the case, the ‘‘ Leeds Head” was considered to be the
type of Megalichthys hibberti and the Burdiehouse specimens were considered to
belong to Rhizodus hibberti. M’Coy decided “ against my better judgement . . .
(to) ... leave it as it is.”

There is little doubt that the name Megalichthys was originally intended to
describe the “big fish” of Burdichouse which is now known as Rhizodus.
However, there is similarly little doubt that when Hibbert used the name
Megalichthys hibberti he meant it to apply to the Burdiehouse remains—the
“teeth and certain other osseous remains ’—mentioned above, and these
remains, which included both “‘ Rhizodus”” and “ Megalichthys” were the true
types of Megalichthys Agassiz in Hibbert 1835.

8. Thus, Traquair (1884, Geol. Mag. (3) 1: 115-121) noted that the
material (“‘ scales and bones . . . actually figured under that name (M. hibberti)
along with [my italics, KST] remains of Rhizodus by Dr. Hibbert ” op. cit.
p. 118) still remaining in the genus Megalichthys has priority concerning the
specific name hibberti, but, having concluded that the Burdiehouse Megalichthys
is different from the Leeds material, and acquiescing to the popular conception
that the latter forms the type of Megalichthys hibberti, he described the Burdie-
house Megalichthys with the aid of new material collected there by Hugh
Miller, as the new species Megalichthys laticeps.

9. The position taken by M’Coy and Traquair was accepted by Smith-
Woodward in his Catalogue of Fossil Fishes in the British Museum (London
1891, Volume 2, 567 pp.) and this authority has been followed by all subsequent
authors (with the exception of Hay, Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil
Vertebrata of North America, U.S. Geol. Surv., 1902; and Jordan, A Classifica-
tion of Fishes, Stanford, 1923). Berg (System der rezenten und fossilen
Fischartigen und Fische, 1958, Deutscher Verlag, Berlin, 310 pp.) also follows
Smith-Woodward’s practice, noting the anomaly in the nomenclature.

10. In a recent study of the situation (Thomson, 1964, op. cit.) I have
given a review of the situation (from which this account is condensed). There
is little doubt that according to the strictest application of the Rules of Nomen-
clature Rhizodus hibberti Owen, 1840, should be renamed Megalichthys hibberti
Agassiz in Hibbert 1835. Similarly the genus now universally known as
Megalichthys Agassiz, 1843, ought to be renamed Parabatrachus Owen, 1853,
with type-species clackmanensis Fleming 1835. However, as detailed above, this
has never been common usage.

The common usage of the names Megalichthys and Rhizodus has remained
unchanged since at least 1855 and has been followed by all active ichthyologists
from Agassiz to the present time. The conclusion of any study of the situation
must be that the present usage should formally be adopted. In connection with
the study mentioned above (Thomson, 1964), it may be proposed that the
“ Leeds ” specimen of Megalichthys (British Museum (Natural History) number
P.42516) be adopted under the plenary powers as the neotype of Megalichthys
hibberti Agassiz, 1835, and that the large mandibular tooth figured by Hibbert
(1835, op. cit. pl. 9, fig. 2) now in the Royal Scottish Museum (no. 1950.38.63)
be adopted as the holotype of Rhizodus hibberti Owen, 1840. Furthermore it is

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

necessary to request the Commission to use its plenary powers to validate the
species name R. hibberti Owen as a name distinct from M. hibberti Agassiz.

It is now possible to clarify the situation concerning the genus currently
named Holoptychius. As we have seen, the name Holoptychus (sic) first appears in
Egerton (1837) who borrowed it from an unpublished manuscript of Agassiz.
This was repeated by Buckland (1837), in a confused manner. In both cases the
material referred to is now known as Rhizodus hibberti Owen, 1840, and this
earlier usage is to be suppressed. The next usage of the name is by Agassiz in
Murchison (1839) in description of the species Holoptychius nobilissimus. This
usage is currently accepted as correct (see Smith-Woodward, 1891, op. cit.: 323).
The Commission is thus requested to place the genus Holoptychius Agassiz in
Murchison, 1839, on the Official List, with H. nobilissimus as the type-species.
The type specimen is specimen number P.6258 in the collections of the Depart-
ment of Palaeontology of the British Museum (Natural History).

The Commission is therefore requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to set aside all designations of type specimen for the nominal
species Megalichthys hibberti Agassiz, 1835, and having done so
to designate the specimen named herein to be the neotype of
that species ;

(b) to validate the specific name hibberti Owen, 1840, as published in
the binomen Rhizodus hibberti, as a name distinct from Mega-
lichthys hibberti Agassiz, 1835;

(c) to suppress the generic names Holoptychius Egerton, 1837, and
Holoptychus Buckland, 1837, for the purposes of both the Law of
Priority and the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic

Names in Zoology:

(a) Megalichthys Agassiz, 1835 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
monotypy; Megalichthys hibberti Agassiz, 1835;

(b) Rhizodus Owen, 1840 (gender : masculine), type-species by mono-
typy; Rhizodus hibberti Owen, 1840;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology:

(a) hibberti Agassiz, 1835, as published in the binomen Megalichthys
hibberti, as defined by the neotype designated under the plenary
powers in (1)(a) above (type-species of Megalichthys Agassiz,
1835);

(b) hibberti Owen, 1840, as published in the binomen Rhizodus hibberti,
as defined by the neotype designated herein;

(c) nobilissimus Agassiz, 1839, as published in the binomen Holop-
tychius nobilissimus (type-species of Holoptychius Agassiz, 1839);

(4) to place the generic names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (c)

above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121

ANTHOCORIS NIGRELLUS ZETTERSTEDT, 1838, ANTHOCORIS NIGRI-

CORNIS ZETTERSTEDT, 1838 AND LYGAEUS PYGMAEUS FALLEN,

1807 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) : PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF NEO-
TYPES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1732

By J. Pericart (10 rue Habert, Montereau 77, France)

While engaged in a revision of the european Anthocoridae, it became
necessary to examine the type-specimens of certain species of Elatophilus Reuter,
1884, and Acompocoris Reuter, 1875.

Thanks to the courtesy of Dr. Hugo Andersson of the Zoological Institute,
Lund, Sweden, I was able to borrow the type series of the following species :

(a) Anthocoris nigrella (sic)* Zetterstedt, 1838—Elatophilus nigrellus (Zetter-

stedt);

(b) Anthocoris stigmatella (sic) Zetterstedt, 1838—Elatophilus stigmatellus
(Zetterstedt);

(d) Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallén, 1807—Acompocoris pygmaeus (Fallén)—A.
lucorum Fallén, 1829 (Hemipt. Sveciae : 67) an objective synonym.

2. A study of this material at once showed that Reuter in his monumental
Monographia Anthocoridarum Orbis Terrestris, 1884, had misidentified the
Zetterstedt and Fallén species mentioned above. Only Anthocoris stigmatella
(sic) Zetterstedt represented the species as identified by Reuter. Actually the
other species on examination of the type series proved to be as follows:

(a) The type series of Anthocoris nigrella (sic) Zetterstedt consisted of two
females bearing the numbers 381 and 382, with a red “ Typ” label
and a name label ‘ Anthocoris nigrella”. Both these specimens
belonged to Xylocoris cursitans Fallén, 1807;

(b) The type series of Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt consisted of three
females bearing the numbers 384, 385 and 386, with the same red
“ Typ” label and a name label “ Anthocoris nigricornis ”’. All these
specimens were Acompocoris species in too bad a state for identifica-
tion; all Zetterstedt’s material mentioned above had been collected at
Lycksele in Sweden;

(c) The type series of Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallén consisted of one male and one
female specimen of Anthocoris minki Dohrn, 1860.

3. It at once became necessary to examine the original material on which
Reuter had based his identifications in the 1884 monograph. Thanks to the
courtesy of Mr. Martin Meinander of the Museum of the Zoological Institute,
Helsinki, Finland, I was able to study this material. It conformed to the
descriptions published by Reuter in the monograph which have been followed
by all Hemipterists for the last 80 years. It seems impossible that Reuter did not
receive typical material, for his revision, from Sweden. It is likely that the

*[Anthocoris is a masculine genus]

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

original series from which he received specimens were composite series and that
the present “ Typ” labels were later placed on specimens left behind at Lund
and not sent to Reuter.

4. Whatever the cause, it would create very great confusion in Anthocorid
nomenclature to apply the Code strictly in this case and to identify the nominal
species from the specimens labelled ‘‘ Typ” in the Lund Museum. This is
particularly so in view of the fact that Anthocoris nigrella (sic) Zetterstedt, 1838,
is the type-species of the genus Elatophilus Reuter, 1884, and Lygaeus pygmaeus
Fallén is the type-species of Acompocoris Reuter, 1875.

It will be necessary in order to maintain stability and current usage, to set
aside the type material in the Lund Museum and to designate neotypes from the
Reuter collection in Helsinki, for the three species in question. This will
conserve the unanimously agreed identity of the nominal species which has
existed for 80 years.

The setting aside of the original type series and the designation of neotypes
while “‘ syntypes ”’ still exist, will demand the use of the plenary powers.

5. The International Commission is therefore requested :

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the original type material for the
following species in the Lund Zoological Museum and to designate
neotypes as follows:

(a) Anthocoris nigrellus (correction of nigrella) Zetterstedt, 1838,
(Ins. Lapp.: 265). Neotype : a female in the Reuter Collection
preserved in the Museum of the Zoological Institute, Helsinki,
Finland; No. 13915, bearing the locality label “‘ Karelia ’’;

(b) Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt, 1838, (Ins. Lapp. : 265). Neo-
type : a female in the Reuter Collection preserved in the Museum
of the Zoological Institute, Helsinki, Finland; No. 13916 bearing
the locality label “‘ Pargas ”’;

(c) Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallén, 1807 (Mon. Cimicum Sveciae : 73).
Neotype : a female in the Reuter Collection, preserved in the
Museum of the Zoological Institute, Helsinki, Finland; No.14555
bearing the locality label “‘ Pargas ”’;

(2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:

(a) nigrellus Zetterstedt, 1838, as published in the binomen Anthocoris
nigrella (sic), as interpreted by the neotype designated under the
plenary powers in (1) (a) above, (type-species of Elatophilus
Reuter, 1884);

(b) nigricornis Zetterstedt, 1838, as published in the binomen Anthocoris
nigricornis, as interpreted by the neotype designated under the
plenary powers in (1) (b) above;

(d) pygmaeus Fallén, 1807, as published in the binomen Anthocoris
pygmaeus, as interpreted by the neotype designated under the
plenary powers in (1) (c) above (type-species of Acompocoris
Reuter, 1875);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123

(3) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology :
(a) Elatophilus Reuter, 1884 (gender : masculine) type-species, by
designation by Kirkaldy, 1906, Anthocoris nigrellus Zetterstedt,
1838;
(b) Acompocoris Reuter, 1875, (gender : masculine) type-species, by
designation by Kirkaldy, 1906, Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallén, 1807.

REFERENCES

Dourn, A. 1860. Stettin. Ent. Zeitschr. 21 : 162

FALLEN, C. F. 1807. Mon. Cimicum Sveciae « 73

KirKALDY, G. W. 1906. Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 32 : 120

REuTER, O. M. 1875. Bihang till K. svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl. 3 (1) : 63

—— 1884. Monographia Anthocoridarum Orbis Terrestris (issued separately); 1889,
Act. Soc. Sci. Fenn. 14 : 56

ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1838. Insecta Lapponica descr. : 265

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REQUEST FOR REVISION OF THE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE RELATING TO THE
FUNCTION OF CONSERVATION OF NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1734

By Charles A. Long and Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum
of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

It is regrettable that in the 1962 International Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature the Principle of Conservation (sometimes called the Law of Prescription)
is neither defined nor discussed. Concepts of the Principle and its implementa-
tion have undergone several modifications since it first appeared in a communica-
tion by Dr. H. Lemche (Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 3 : 158-161, 1950), and have
involved the following suggested procedures : (1) setting priority aside to avoid
replacing well-established and long-used names by senior synonyms that were
long overlooked and last printed prior to 1850; (2) referring any disruptive name
to the International Commission for a decision concerning its use, and, further-
more, prohibiting its use unless it is sanctioned by the International Commission;
(3) retention of long-used names and rejection of problematical or long-over-
looked names; and (4) suppression of long-overlooked names (nomina oblita).
The last procedure is vague and merely one important facet of the Principle.

Concerning conservation of names, Follett (an unofficial interpretation of
the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature ..., 1955) discussed the
official lists and indices; his definitions indicate that a name conserved (placed
on an Official list) is to be used in “‘ preference ” to any other name. Nothing is
said concerning two or more conserved names found to be synonyms. Bradley’s
remarkable official draft of the English text of the International Code (Bull.
Zool. Nomencl., 14 : 7-285, 1957) briefly mentions the Principle, lists, and
indices, but little is found regarding them in the 1961 and present codes,
despite the need for universal clarity of purpose and procedures. Our purpose
here is to discuss the process of conservation of names and to suggest emendation
to the present code in order to remedy its deficiencies relative to conservation
of names.

An officially rejected name is agreed to be of no further consequence to
nomenclature, except as individually specified. On the other hand, we assume
that a conserved name is always by virtue of its appearance on an official list
not only itself secure from threat, but is a potential danger to nomenclatural
stability merely by its availability through becoming a junior synonym of other,
well-established or even conserved names. In fact, the entire role of the official
lists of conserved names needs to be re-evaluated inasmuch as conservation of
names not only is a threat to other names but may in most cases be circum-
vented without loss of the desired end of nomenclatural stability by simple
suppression of disruptive names. Unbridled augmentation of the official lists
appears to us not only unnecessary but also potentially dangerous to stability,
in the long run. Obviously, problems that will arise whereby conserved names
endanger well-established names could be solved by suppression of the former
under the plenary powers; but removal of names from official lists would

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125

materially weaken confidence in and function of them as a working tool.
Practicality requires stability of lists and indices.

Presumably the function of official lists are (1) to conserve names in cases
where suppression is not involved, but where for example they may be in-
correctly proposed (lacking proper qualifications, such as description, or found
in works inconsistently binomial), or where the names would otherwise be
reversed in applicability, etc.; and (2) to protect a desired name beyond the
specific stipulations of a given case brought before the Commission, that is
against future threats which in fact might derive from well-established names.
Surely in every case of conservation concomitant with suppression the name
proposed for conservation must be judged to be a very useful name, the conserva-
tion of which might, for example, be obviously of benefit to general or applied
zoology (see Hemming’s introductory note, in the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology, 1958). A problem unanticipated by the present Code is the possi-
bility that two conserved names may become synonyms, or that a conserved
name may become a junior synonym of a better known but unconserved name.
This latter problem is surely intensified by conservation of subspecific names.
For the reasons mentioned above, placement of a name on an official list of
conserved names therefore should be accomplished only after very close scrutiny
by the petitioner and the Commission.

The practice of suppressing threatening names with concomitant conservation
of the threatened name is fast becoming customary. In proposals before the
Commission we know of one by Glass and Baker (Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 22 (3) :
204-205, 1965) and two by Long (ibid., 21 : 318-320, 370-371, 1964) wherein
suppression seems in our present opinion worthwhile, but conservation of the
threatened names unnecessary. If the nomen oblitum rule were revised so that
nomina oblita are never available nor ordinarily brought before the Commission
the requisite listing and indexing of names by the Commission would be greatly,
reduced. Automatic rejection of nomina oblita from nomenclature by the
taxonomist himself has been practiced by Hoffmeister and Lee (J. Mamm.,
44 : 510, 1963); and certainly their procedure, while not strictly in accordance
with provisions of the present Code, appears to us to be superior and relatively
simple, avoiding delay and needless appeals.

To summarize, we suggest emendation of the Code (1) to define and discuss
the Principle of Conservation, which once involved retention of long-established
names as well as rejection of long-overlooked or forgotten names (the nomen
oblitum rule does not specify the former); (2) to state that conservation may
usually be achieved by rejection of a disruptive name, and need not always
require listing of the desired name on an official list; (3) to define and discuss all
of the official lists and indices and most certainly to state their functions; (4) to
express the need for continued stability of such lists and indices; and (5) to
specify the entire procedure from nomenclatural problem to official judgment
wherein validity of one of two or more conserved names is established. We
further urge that the Commission reject totally or in part all proposals involving
conservation of threatened names by placement of the desired name on an official
list, except where official conservation is demonstrably essential to achievement
of a stable and universal nomenclature.

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PHLAEOTHRIPS HALIDAY, 1836 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA) :
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1741

By L. A. Mound (British Museum (Natural History), London)

1. This application concerns the designation under the plenary powers, of
a type-species for the genus Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836, p. 441 to replace
Phlaeothrips ulmi Blanchard, 1845 nec Fabricius, the identity of which is
unknown.

2. The genus Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836, was established for seven species
including pedicularia n.sp., ulmi Fabricius, 1781, and coriacea n.sp. No type-
species was designated.

3. In 1840 in his Introduction to the Modern Classification of Insects,
Synopsis: 45, Westwood unfortunately failed to indicate a type-species for
Phlaeothrips Haliday in the manner adopted in the body of the work as validated
in Opinion 71. Instead he gave an abbreviated copy of Haliday’s list in the
form of a key :

“Sect. A. Ocelli & wings O. 1 sp. P. pedicularia.
Sect. AA. Ocelli 3; wings complete or abbreviated.
Subs. B. Sides of head parallel. 5 sp. P. aculeata Fab.
Subs. BB. Sides of head converging in front. 2 sp. P. coriacea’’.

4. Amyot and Serville, 1843 restricted Phloeothrips (sic) to two species,
coriacea Haliday and annulicornis Haliday and placed the other species in two
new genera Haplothrips A. & S. and Hoplothrips A. & S. But according to
Article 69 (a) (V) of the Code, a nominal species is not rendered ineligible for
designation as a type-species by reason of being the type-species of another
genus. This rules out type-species designation by restriction.

5. Blanchard,. 1845, validly designated Thrips ulmi Fabricius, 1781, as the
type-species of Phloeothrips (sic) but unfortunately misidentified Fabricius’
species since in his description of this species he refers to the presence of teeth
on the fore-femora, a character not found in the true Thrips ulmi Fabricius.
This type designation remained unnoticed for over a hundred years, although
it is the first valid type designation for Phlaeothrips Haliday. Unfortunately
P. ulmi Blanchard nec (Fabricius) cannot be identified from the brief description
available, but under Article 70 (a) (ii) it is possible for the Commission, if so
requested, to designate under the plenary powers, a species which will maintain
uniformity and stability of nomenclature.

6. Uzel, 1895, upon whose work the modern study of Thysanoptera is based,
introduced the family-group name Phloeothripidae (sic), and used the genus in
the sense of Amyot and Serville, 1843, to include P. coriacea Haliday. No
type-species was indicated.

7. Hood, 1912, designated coriacea Haliday as the type-species of Phloeo-
thrips (sic). This action, being in accord with the usage established by Amyot
and Serville, and followed by Uzel, was accepted for many years by subsequent
authors. But Hood’s designation was antedated by that of Blanchard, 1845.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127

8. Amyot and Serville, 1843, placed four species in the new genus Hoplo-
thrips A. & S. including Trips (sic) corticis DeGeer, 1773. Karny, 1912, desig-
nated corticis DeGeer as the type-species of Hoplothrips A. & S._ Unfortunately
corticis A. & S. nec DeGeer was described as having bidentate fore-femora,
and corticis Karny nec DeGeer was considered by Karny to be identical with
nodicornis Reuter, 1880, the type-species of Acanthothrips Uzel, 1895, which has
unidentate fore-femora. The true corticis DeGeer has unarmed fore-femora.
However the nominal designation by Karny of corticis DeGeer as the type-
species of Hoplothrips A. & S. has been accepted for many years by subsequent
authors.

9. Morison, 1949, designated P. pedicularius Haliday, 1836, as the type-
species of Phloeothrips (sic) on the invalid grounds that this was the first species
listed by Haliday. He placed Hoplothrips A. & S. as a synonym of Phloeothrips
(sic) Haliday, and proposed the name Euphloeothrips for Phloeothrips A. & S.,
1843 (type-species P. coriacea Haliday) nec Philaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (type-
species P. pedicularius Haliday). Morison’s designation was antedated by that
of Blanchard, 1845.

10. Stannard, 1957, introduced to current literature Blanchard’s 1845
designation of ulmi Fabricius as the type-species of Phlaeothrips Haliday. P.
coriacea and its congeners were placed in Acanthothrips Uzel, and the large
genus Hoplothrips was placed as a synonym of Phlaeothrips Haliday.

11. Priesner, 1961 and 1964, rejected both Morison’s and Stannard’s re-
interpretation of Phlaeothrips Haliday and Hoplothrips A. & S. on the grounds
of customary usage and stability of nomenclature, and in his keys to the species
of European Thysanoptera he maintains the traditional usage of these generic
names.

12. There is no doubt that the first valid type-species designation for
Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836, was that of Blanchard, 1845, that is, Thrips ulmi
Fabricius, 1781. As he misidentified Fabricius’ species, the case must be
submitted under Article 70 (a) (ii) to the International Commission, who, under
the plenary powers may designate as type-species whichever species will in its
judgment best serve stability and uniformity.

13. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is there-
fore requested :

(a) to suppress, under the plenary powers, all previous type-species desig-
nations of Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836, and having done so to designate
Phlaeothrips coriacea (sic) Haliday, 1836 as type-species;

(b) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
names :

(i) Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (gender : masculine), type-species
designated under the plenary powers in (a) above;

(ii) Hoplothrips Amyot and Serville, 1843 (gender : masculine), type-
species Trips corticis DeGeer, 1773, as designated by Karny, 1912;

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(i) coriaceus emendation of coriacea Haliday, 1836, as published in
the binomen Phlaeothrips coriacea (type-species of Phlaeothrips
Haliday, 1836);

(ii) corticis DeGeer, 1773 as published in the binomen Trips corticis
(type-species of Hoplothrips Amyot and Serville, 1843);

(d) to place on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology the
name PHLAEOTHRIPIDAE Uzel, 1895 (emended from PHLOEOTHRIPIDAE),
type-genus Phiaeothrips Haliday, 1836.

REFERENCES

Amyot, C.J. B., and ServiLLe, A. 1843. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Hemiptéres
Paris.

BLANCHARD, E. 1845. Histoire des Insectes etc. Il. Paris.

Fasricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum Il. Hamburgi & Kilonii

Haupay, A.H. 1836. Anepitome of the British genera, in the Order Thysanoptera,
with indications of a few of the species. Entomological Magazine 3 : 439-451

Hoop, J.D. 1912. Descriptions of new North American Thysanoptera. Proc. ent.
Soc. Wash. 14 : 129-160

Karny, H. 1912. Revision der von Serville aufgestellten Thysanopteren-Genera.
Zool. Annin. 4 : 322-344

Morison, G. D. 1949. Thysanoptera of the London area. Pt. II. London nat. 28
(Supplement) : 77-131

PriESNER, H. 1961. Das System der Tubulifera (Thysanoptera). Ann. Ost. Akad.
Wiss. 1969 : 283-296

—— 1964. Ordnung Thysanoptera in Bestimmungsbucher zur Bodenfauna Europas,
Lief. 2.242 pp. Akademie-Verlag. Berlin

Reuter, O. M. 1880. Thysanoptera Fennica I. Tubulifera. Bidr. Kann. Finl. Nat.
Folk. 40 : 1-26

STANNARD, L. J. 1957. The phylogeny and classification of the North American
genera of the Sub-Order Tubulifera (Thysanoptera). Illinois biol. Monogr.
25 : 200 pp.

UzeL, H. 1895. Monographie der Ordnung Thysanoptera. Koniggratz.

Westwoop, J. O. 1840. Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. Synopsis of the genera of British

Insects. London.

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director)

Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E.
Prof. Dr. R. Spiarck

Dr. N. R. Stoll

Mr. C. W. Wright

Dr. G. F. de Witte

B. The Officers of the Trust

W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller)
Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

Opinions

Opinion 773 (Tergipes Cuvier, 1805)

Opinion 774 (Eubranchus Forbes, 1838)...
Opinion 775 (Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855)
Opinion 776 (Cratena Bergh, 1864) ae
Opinion 777 (Diaphoreolis Iredale & O'Donoghue, 1923)
Opinion 778 (Godiva Macnae, 1954) ase
Opinion 779 (Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) ;

Opinion 780 (Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843)

Opinion 781 (Flabellina Voigt, 1834)

Opinion 782 (Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851)
Opinion 783 (Four Nudibranch Gastropoda Genera)

New Cases

Proposed extension of the neotype concept (P. J. P. Whitehead; M.
Boeseman)..

Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794, and Bythinus Leach, 1817: Proposed addition to
the Official List in their original sense (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Claude
Besuchet) .

Megalichthys and Rhizodus (Pisces): Proposal for the ‘stabilization of
these generic names (Keith Stewart Thomson)

Anthocoris nigrellus Zetterstedt, 1838, Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt,
1838, and Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallen, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera):
Proposed roasts of neotypes under the plenary powers (J. Peri-
cart)

Request for revision of ‘the part of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature relating to the function of conservation of names
(Charles A. Long and Hobart M. Smith)

Phliaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): Proposed designa-
tion of a type-species under the plenary powers (L. A. Mound) ..

124
126

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)
Comments

Comments on the proposal for conservation of Pan Oken, 1816 and
Panthera Oken, 1816 (Philip Hershkovitz; Fernado Dias de Avila-
Pires)

Withdrawal of application for the validation under the plenary powers of
Tinodes pusillus McLachlan, 1862 (W. E. China)...

Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Belemnites
mucronatus Link, 1807 (R. V. Melville and C.J. Wood)...

Comments on the proposed conservation of Ancistrodon (H. M. Smith:
L. M. Klauber, R. Mertens)...

Comments on the proposal on Zorilla by Dr. van Gelder and the counter
proposal by Dr. China (P. Hershkovitz) +

Comment on the proposal concerning the gender of names ending in -ops
(R. G. Wolk & E. Eisenmann) ..

Comments on the addition to the Official List of Gryllus sanguinipes
Fabricius, 1798 (K. H. L. Key; R. L. Edwards) a=

Further objections to the proposed validation of a neotype for Cancer
setiferus Linnaeus, 1767 (G. Gunter) ...

Comments on the proposed validation of Voluta episcopalis
1758 (R. Tucker Abbott, W. O. Cernohorsky, D. Heppelil) ..

Amaurobius proposals: Comment on the alternative proposals made by
Fr. Chrysanthus (H. W. Levi & O. Kraus)...

Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species for Amplexi-
zaphrentis Vaughan, 1906 (M. Mitchell) :

gry re opal gel aero shpe as a nomen oblitum (R. Tucker
Abbott)...

© 1966 Tee beeexamomut Trust rom Zootocical NOMENCLATURE
Printed im Exgiasd by Staples Printers Limited at ther Kettering, Northants, estabiishmest

Volume 23, Part 4

14th October, 1966
pp. 129-192

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature .. a ys oe. he a ; 129

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases .. xb =) 129

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1.

1966

Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (28 August 1963)

Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London,
S.W.7) (31 May 1960)

Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)

B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16
December 1954)

Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)

Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(23 July 1958)

Dr. Henning LeMcuHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)

Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)

Professor Tadeusz JAczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (23 July 1958)

Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958)

Dr. D. V. OprucueEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.)
(5 November 1958)

Professor Tohru Ucuma (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March

“yee? Paco ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain)

3 ay

Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary)

Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa,
Canada) (9 June 1961) (Councillor) ,

a W. = CuinaA (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant

‘ecretary

Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962)

Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963)

Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans,
Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Norman R. Sto. (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
(Councillor)

Dr. L. B. Hottnurs (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(28 August 1963) (Acting President)

Professor Ernst MAyr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor)

Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963)
(Councillor)

Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla
California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
(28 August 1963)

Dr. W. D. L. Rive (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Curtis W. SaABrosKy (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 23, Part 4 (pp. 129-192) 14th October, 1966

Second Instalments of Official Lists and Indexes of Names have now been
published at the following prices, excluding postage

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology .. at By: £1
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ..
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ..

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology

Official Index of ay and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology a *; Y =

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid ee ee Names
in Zoology

Orders to: Publications Officer, International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature, 14 Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

NOTICES
(a) Date of Commencement of Voting.—In normal circumstances the
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.
(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the
present part of the Bulletin:
(1) Suppression of Voluta mitra episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda).
Z.N.(S.) 1728.

(2) Suppression of Clupea flosmaris Richardson, 1846 (Pisces) Z.N.<(S.) 1740.

(3) Suppression of Sphyraena acus Lacépéde, 1803 and Belona argalus
Lesueur, 1821 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723.

(4) Designation of a type-species for Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825 (Insecta,
Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1742.

(5) Suppression of Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (Insecta, Diptera).

Z.N.(S.) 1745.

(6) Suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.)
1746.

(7) Suppression of Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.)
1748.

(8) Suppression of Cornufer Tschudi, 1838, and Cornufer unicolor Tschudi,
1838 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1747.

(9) Suppression of Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.)
1750.

(10) Emendation of STENOPODINAE Stal, 1859 to STENOPODAINAE (Insecta,
Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1747.

(11) Suppression of Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831, and Palaeotriton
Fitzinger, 1837 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1751.

(12) Suppression of Phelsuma ornatum Gray, 1825 (Sauria). Z.N.(S.) 1752.

(13) Suppression of Hippocampus erectus Perry, (1810) (Pisces). Z.N.(S.)
L753:

(14) Validation of Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.)
1754.

(15) Suppression of Hippella Moerch, 1861 (Pelecypoda). ZNGS,) 1755.

(16) Suppression of Truncatulina dumblei Applin, 1925 (Foraminifera).
Z.N.(S.) 1756.

(17) Designation of a type-species for Neolycaena de Nicéville, 1890 (Insecta,
Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1758.

(18) Suppression of Cellia errabunda Swellengrebel, 1925 (Insecta, Diptera).
Z.N.(S.) 1760.

(19) Designation of a type-species for Enithares Spinola, 1837 (Insecta,
Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1762.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO MIRIS AND MIRIDAE
(INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1090
(see volume 21, pages 263-267; 22, pages 122-133)

By T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

In connection with the recently published text of the modified proposal of I. M.
Kerzhner concerning the addition to the Official List of the family-group name
MIRIDAE and other names involved in the case I wish to make the following supple-
mentary comment:

1. The new proposal of Kerzhner (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 128-133) differs in a
marked way from the former proposal advanced in the original application by Kerzhner
& Tryapitsin (ibid. 21 : 263-267).

2. Alternative C of the modified proposal, which Kerzhner seems to consider the
most appropriate, means in fact a return to the practice which prevailed in hemiptero-
logical nomenclature in the period from 1888-1943 and was based to a large extent
on the wrong assumption that Fabricius himself “ designated ” Cimex dolobratus
Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of Miris Fabricius, 1794. At the same time alternative
C of the new proposal is a return to the type-species selection for Miris Fabricius made
by Curtis in 1838, and repeated by Westwood in 1840.

3. Iam unable to agree, however, that it would be a “‘ return to Hahn’s conception
of the genus ” (Kerzhner, op. cit.: 129). Hahn has never fixed a type-species for Miris
Fabricius, and as to Cimex dolobratus, he placed it at first in the genus Miris Fabricius
(Wanz. Ins. 2, 1834: 75-76, pl. 53, fig. 160), but Herrich-Schiffer transferred it later to
the genus Lopus Hahn (op. cit. 3, 1835: 4546, pl. 86, figs. 261-262).

4. I see also in this case no reason to apply Art. 70 of the Code as neither Latreille
in 1810, nor Curtis in 1838 nor Westwood in 1840 misidentified the species they selected
as type-species for Miris Fabricius.

5. It is, of course, for specialists in the MIRIDAE to decide whether the formally
valid, first type-selection for Miris Fabricius made by Latreille in 1810 should be
maintained, or whether the Commission should set it aside under the plenary powers
and fix, following Curtis, 1838, Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus to be the type-species.

6. I quite agree with Kerzhner (in his modified proposal) that the second procedure
would be more in accordance with the taxonomic concept of the genus Miris Fabricius
initiated by Fallén in 1807 and accepted by most hemipterologists in the XIXth and
the first half of the XXth centuries. Being no specialist in the miRIDAE I do not feel
competent to suggest whether it would be advisable to return to that concept now,
after over 20 years of almost consistent use of the generic name Miris Fabricius in
accordance with the type-species designation made by Latreille. It should be recalled,
for instance, in this connection that in the recent monograph of the miRIDAE of France
(Wagner et Weber, Faune de France, 67, Paris, 1964) the generic name Miris Fabricius
is used with the type-species Cimex striatus Linnaeus (op. cit.: 183).

7. As to the family-group name MIRIDAE, in case the type-species of Miris Fabricius
should be fixed under the plenary powers as Cimex dolobratus, this family-group name
should be also derived from the generic name conceived accordingly; in other words
from the generic name Miris Fabricius as understood by Curtis, 1838, by Westwood,
1840, or by Reuter, 1888. The oldest family-group name based on Miris with type-
species dolobratus was MIRIDES Gorski, 1852, published with a direct and unambiguous
reference to Miris Curtis.

8. Thus, if the modified proposal of Kerzhner is accepted by the Commission, then
point (5) (a) of the proposal (op. cit.: 133) should be replaced by the following:

(a) MIRIDAE (correction of MIRIDES) Gorski, 1852 (type-genus Méiris Fabricius,
1794) with a ruling that in accordance with Art. 40b of the Code it takes the
date 1833 and is to be considered a senior subjective synonym and homonym
of miriDEs Hahn, [1833].

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

9. Point (6) (a) of the modified proposal of Kerzhner should be replaced by the
following:

(a) MIRIDES Gorski, 1852 (an incorrect spelling for MIRIDAE Gorski, 1852).

10. Points (1) (c), (2) (b), (3) (c) and (5) (a) of my comment on the original proposal
of Kerzhner and Tryapitsin (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 127-128) should be incorporated
at appropriate places in the new proposal of Kerzhner.

SUPPORT FOR SUPPRESSION OF XYLEBORUS BOWDICH, 1825.
Z.NAS.) 1720.
(see volume 22, pages 269-270)

By D. E. Bright (Ent. Res. Inst., Canada Dept. Agric., Ottawa, Ontario)

I fully endorse Mr. R. T. Thompson’s application for suppression of Xyleborus
Bowdich, 1825, in favor of Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864. His application plainly and
concisely stated the reasons for this action and I can add nothing more except my
support.

Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825, described from a “‘ worm” boring in orange trees
plainly represents an unrecognizable form; in fact, it cannot be properly placed in any
family.

On the other hand, Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 is an extremely common genus of
Scolytidae. It is worldwide in distribution and contains at least one thousand names.
The genus includes many noxious pests of agriculture and research is currently being
conducted on the economic effect of numerous species in many countries. A rapid
examination of the literature from 1959 to 1963 showed the following numbers of
references from various regions of the world: Southeast Asia, 13; Africa, 11; Europe, 9;
Orient, 2 and Central America, 1.

Although there is disagreement among authorities concerning the limits of the genus,
all of them use the name Xy/eborus in the sense of Eichhoff. These problems will
gradually be resolved by more extensive studies. To follow the Law of Priority in this
case would cause considerable confusion and would serve no useful purpose. In the
interest of stability, I add my support to Thompson’s proposal.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF ANOPHELES
AFRICANUS THEOBALD, 1901. Z.N.(S.) 1722
(see volume 22, page 324)

By P. F. Mattingly (British Museum (Natural History), London)

I should like to support the application by Dr. Gillies for suppression of the name
Anopheles africanus Theobald, 1901. The species in question is of no importance as
a malaria vector, but it is very common and has been many times recorded in the
literature under the name obscurus.

By J. A. Reid (British Museum (Natural History), London)

I agree with Dr. Gillies’ reasons for this proposal. Namely that africanus is very
probably a senior synonym of obscurus Grunberg, 1905, but that the latter is the name
by which this species of mosquito has always been known, whilst africanus does not
seem to have been used for 58 years after its first publication. Consequently, for the
sake of stability it is very desirable that africanus should be suppressed, and I support
Dr. Gillies’ application.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSALS REGARDING CHRYSOPINAE IN
NEUROPTERA AND DIPTERA. Z.N.(S.) 1725
(see volume 22, pages 332-333)
By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London)
I would like to support the above application by Dr. Bo Tjeder in connection with

the homonymy of the subfamily names based upon Chrysopa Leach, 1815, and
Chrysops Meigen, 1803.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

I am in favour of the proposal set out in para. 5 rather than that in para. 4, since in
addition to the arguments there expounded, I feel that the emended name CHRYSOP-
SINAE is a better-sounding and more easily pronounced name than CHRYSOPAINAE or
CHRYSOPAIDAE.

By F. M. Carpenter (Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.)
I am writing to lend my full support to the proposal of Mr. Bo Tjeder that the

International Commission use its plenary powers to validate CHRYSOPIDAE and CHRYSO-
PINAE in their accustomed sense in the order Neuroptera. I also endorse the several
other proposals submitted by Mr. Tjeder in connection with the foregoing recom-
mendation.

The identity of the subfamily names based upon the genus Chrysopa Leach, on the
one hand, and Chrysops Meigen, on the other, will continue to cause confusion until
action is taken by the International Commission. The history of this nomenclatural
problem certainly indicates that, with Chrysopa the type-genus of the family CHRYSO-
PIDAE, no confusion would follow the acceptance of the genus as the type-genus of the
subfamily CHRYSOPINAE. On the other hand, the adoption of the subfamily name
CHRYSOPAINAE for the genus Chrysopa would be certain to cause difficulties for many
years. The dipterous name CHRYSOPINAE has not had nearly the extensive use that the
corresponding name has had at both family and subfamily level in the Neuroptera.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO REJECT MITRA PERLATA [RODING],
1798 (GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1726
(see volume 22, page 334)

By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

Dr. R. Tucker Abbott has shown me the comments he has made regarding the
application in question by Mr. Walter O. Cernohorsky, and I agree with his statements.

It seems indisputable that Mitra perlata Roding, 1798, is a nomen nudum, since
Roding does not cite any figures. As Abbott points out, the “ process of elimination ”
—a dubious method at best—cannot be used here because Roding, after bestowing the
name Mitra imperialis on Gmelin’s « variety of Voluta pertusa, gives two names: Mitra
perlata and M. capucina to varieties of Gmelin’s species, but in neither instance does
he use “ var. 8 ”, so we do not know if either or any of them are meant for this variety.

The rules for nomina nuda should be strictly adhered to, and this is particularly
important in the case of the Museum Boltenianum, which contains many new names
used by RG6ding for varieties of Gmelin’s names, without being characterized or
defined in any way.

Thus it appears that this application needs no action by the Commission, other
than to declare that this case falls outside of their sphere of operation.

By Jean M. Cate (Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)

I wish to go on record as supporting this request, for the same reasons stated in the
petition.

Furthermore, as a worker in this family-group, I have on file well over 2500 names
used in Mitridae by numerous authors in this family subsequent to Réding, and although
the file is not yet complete, it does cover the more significant post-Linnaean works in
Mitridae, and the name Mitra perlata does not appear in the file.

There are, however, numerous references, with adequate figures, to Mitra chrysos-
toma Broderip, 1836, and the species is well known by this name in important collec-
tions all over the world.

It would seem proper to suppress the name Mitra perlata Réding, 1798, on the
basis of these findings and the arguments set forth by Mr. Cernohorsky in his petition.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CONSERVATION DE THEREVA SUBCOLEOPTRATA (F. 1798) COMME TYPE
DE PHASIA LATREILLE 1804 (INSECTA DIPTERA).* Z.N.(S.) 1706
(see volume 22, pages 243-245, volume 23, pages 9-11)

par Claude Dupuis (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
57 rue Cuvier, Paris 5e, France)

La proposition de Herting (1965) de remplacer Thereva subcoleoptrata (F. 1798)
comme type de Phasia Latr. 1804 par Ectophasia rubra (Girschner 1888) Dupuis 1957},
se fonde sur une critique de Latreille, sur une éventuelle erreur d’identification de
subcoleoptrata par Fabricius et sur diverses considérations d’usage.

La documentation que j’ai réunie, au cours de vingt années d’études sur les
Phasiinae, me permet d’apporter ci-aprés, relativement a ce cas, un faisceau cohérent
d’arguments, pour la plupart méconnus de notre collégue. Aprés examen et discussion
de ceux qui concernent Latreille, puis Fabricius, puis les conséquences possibles de la
proposition en cause, je serai dans l’obligation de conclure, avec Sabrosky (1966), au
rejet de celle-ci.

I—LES ACTIONS TAXONOMIQUES DE LATREILLE

Herting et Sabrosky, l.c., s’écartent de Dupuis (1949) dans le détail de l’interpréta-
tion juridique des actions de Latreille; le premier doute, en outre, de leur fondement
zoologique. Ces deux aspects de la question ayant des conséquences nomenclatoriales
différentes doivent étre examinés indépendamment.

A—PORTEE JURIDIQUE DES ACTIONS DE LATREILLE

Les actions a considérer sont l’introduction du nom Phasia et la désignation du type
du genre correspondant.
1—-Signification de l’introduction du nom Phasia

Phasia apparait originellement dans Latreille (18045: 195) sans espéce incluse
nommément citée, mais avec une diagnose et deux synonymes: “les Théréves de M.
Fab.’’, “‘ mes mouches applaties ’’. Son introduction correspond donc (cf. Dupuis 1949)
au remplacement de Thereva F. 1798 (préemployé dans Thereva Latr. 1796) par un
nomen novum, et non pas a la création d’un taxon.

L’intention de Latreille 4 cet égard ne fait aucun doute, car:

—dés 1802, il traite 4 part de ses “‘ Théréves ”’ (p. 440) et de ses ‘‘ Mouches apla-
ties” (p. 456), incluant dans celles-ci: “les théréves de Fabricius—Thereva
coleoptrata F. etc.—les chrysogastres de Meigen” (ces derniéres ne seront
jamais plus citées);

—en 1803, p. 122, il réaffirme la synonymie entre ses ‘* Mouches applaties ” et
“les Théréves de M. Fabricius ” et en 1804a, p. 137, il déplore que la désignation
de Théréve lui ait été “‘ enlevée ” par Fabricius;

—en 1809, p. 296, il regrette que le nom Thereva (qu’il avait substitué en 1796 a
Bibio Fabr. non Geoffr.) ait été “‘ usurpé ”’ par Fabricius:

—en 1817, p. 505, il rappelle que Phasia existait prélablement en tant que taxon
(“ cette coupe générique ”’) sous le nom de Thereva F. auquel il a simplement
“* substitué ” celui de Phasia.

Cette position de Latreille sur ’homonymie de Thereva F. était parfaitement
connue (Fallén 1820: 2) et méme reconnue des contemporains (Wiedemann 1817a:
6, 1818: 45, 1830: 262; Meigen 1820: 115, 1824: 185).

En conséquence, Phasia renferme, des l’origine—1804b—les Six Thereva de Fabricius
1798 (cf. Dupuis 1949).

Ceci correspond, 1a encore, a la position de Latreille qui parle constamment
(1802, 1803, 1804a, 1804b, 1805) des Théréves de Fabricius, au pluriel, qui, dés 1802,
mentionne “‘ Th. coleoptrata F., etc. . .”, qui cite, en 1805, celle-ci mais également “‘la
Théréve hémiptére de Fabricius” et, en 1809, quatre espéces.

* Contributions a l’étude des Phasiinae cimicophages. 32.
1 Herting donne “ Phasia rubra Girschner 1886”. Le statut exact de ce Diptére est Ecto-
phasia rubra (Girschner 1888: 231 sub. var.) Dupuis: 1957: 1580, 1963: 112.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135

2—Procédure de désignation du type

Latreille 18045 n’ayant inclu nommément aucune espéce dans Phasia, la désignation
du type résulte nécessairement d’une publication ultérieure.

Selon Sabrosky (1966), cette publication est celle de Latreille 1805 ot! Thereva
subcoleoptrata F. (par lapsus “ coleoptrata”’), seule espéce citée (...sous forme
latine, car Th. hemiptera est mentionnée conditionnellement sous forme vernaculaire),
devient le type de Phasia par monotypie subséquente.

J'ai personnellement soutenu (1949) que le nom. nov. Phasia renfermant, dés
Yorigine, toutes les Thereva de Fabricius 1798, la désignation de son type devrait
résulter d’un choix formel parmi celles-ci, non exprimé en 1805.

Ce choix intentionnel (cf. Opinion XI de la CINZ) d’un type ayant été fait par
Latreille 1810 en faveur de Th. subcoleoptrata (p. 444 sans lapsus!), mon interprétation
conduit évidemment au méme résultat que celle de Sabrosky?). J’ai toutefois tenu a
rappeler les deux, car, si la Commission confirmait le type de Phasia, elle devrait
préciser quand et comment il a été designé.

B—VALIDITE ZOOLOGIQUE DES ACTIONS DE LATREILLE

Comme beaucoup d’auteurs de son temps—a I’exception notable de Fabricius
(v. infra)—Latreille connaissait sans doute assez peu les espéces de ses Phasia. Géné-
riste bien plus que spécigraphe, il ne donne, en 1802, 1803, 18045, 1809, 1810, aucune
description spécifique de ces Diptéres; il précise d’ailleurs, en 1802 p. 122, 4 propos du
genre “* Mouche ”’, qu’ayant “‘ embrassé la totalité des Insectes, il [lui] a été impossible
jusqu’a ce jour de fixer spécialement [ses] regards sur ce genre.”

Ceci ne diminue en rien la portée de ses deux actions taxonomiques, car, d’une part,
celles-ci se fondent uniquement sur des textes, et d’autre part, Latreille n’a jamais
commis la confusion entre Ph. subcoleoptrata et les Ectophasia que suppose Herting.

Ces deux propositions se démontrent aisément.
1—Latreille et le recours aux textes

En dehors de la création du nom. nov., de la désignation du type et de trois données
originales®) sans incidence sur celles-ci, tout l’apport de Latreille sur les Phasia d’Europe
est emprunté a Fabricius. En effet:

1—les Thereva de Fabricius servent de références, dés 1802, et en 1803, aux

““mouches aplaties”’, puis, en 18045 et 1805, aux Phasia lorsque ce nom
remplace Thereva et “* mouches aplaties ”’;
2—la premiére des Thereva de Fabricius, i.e. subcoleoptrata, est toujours citée
comme exemple (1802, 18045, 1805) ou comme type (1810);

3—les diagnoses et descriptions latines de Fabricius 1794 fournissent les éléments
qui, traduits mot a mot en frangais, constituent la description de 1805 et celles

Gulsiy:

4—les références iconographiques de Fabricius 1805 sont reproduites en 1809 et
1817 sans discussion (alors que la pl. 71 fig. 6 de Schaeffer 1767 représente
Ectophasia rubra et non pas Allophora hemiptera*) et que la subcoleoptrata
des pl. 13 et 14 de Panzer 1800 correspond a hemiptera);

5—les localités mentionnées par Fabricius ou les illustrateurs qu’il cite sont toutes

a yest - 1817, sans addition autre que subcoleoptrata aux environs de Paris
(v. infra);

Fee cee SO Ses SP aie et erie tier, car, rt verison) wh Weitere sere hieT

2 L’interprétation de Sabrosky parait inspirée de CNZ 69 a II 1. Je dois a ce propos observer:
1°) que la raison d’étre de cette disposition du CNZ n’est nullement évidente, 2°) que le CNZ
ne précise pas si la disposition s’applique aux genres nominaux représentés par un nom. nov.
et ce que vaut la référence a un genre nominal préexistant, 3°) que les textes francais et anglais
ne correspondent pas; il faudrait lire en frangais: “la simple référence A une publication
contenant les noms des espéces ne constitue pas par elle-méme I’inclusion des espéces dans un
genre nominal ”’,

3 Tl s’agit, en 1809, de la synonymie de Musca nebulosa Panzer 1798 avec Th. obesa F. et de
la mention d’une figure de Coquebert comme variété de crassipennis (v. infra), puis, en 1817,
de indication de subcoleoptrata aux environs de Paris (v. infra).

4 Sur ’importance des déterminations de cette figure par Fabricius, v. infra.

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6—le souci de préserver la pureté de l’acception fabricéenne de Th. subcoleoptrata
s’exprime sans ambiguité par des réserves sur la “* Th. subcoleoptrata”’ de la
planche de Schellenberg® et sur le “‘ Conops subcoleoptratus ’’ de Linné®.

En ces conditions, il est évident que la création du nom. nov. Phasia et la désigna-
tion de son type reposent uniquement et sciemment sur des textes’7—ceux de Fabricius
—ce qui constitue, dans l’une comme dans I’autre de ces actions nomenclatoriales, une
procédure légitime et habituelle.
2—Latreille et la détermination de Phasia subcoleoptrata

Herting suggere que Latreille aurait confondu Ph. subcoleoptrata avec une Ecto-
phasia (sans d’ailleurs préciser laquelle). Il fonde son opinion sur un nom “‘ vernacu-
laire ” de Latreille et sur mon explication de l’étymologie de Phasia. Ces arguments
philologiques ne résistent pas a l’examen et, de plus, l’oeuvre de Latreille renferme des
preuves zoologiques qu’il n’a jamais commis une telle confusion.

(a) Le nom “ Phasie ailes-épaisses ”’

Lorsque Phasia crassipennis n’est pas citée, le nom “ vernaculaire ”’ ‘‘ Phasie ailes-
épaisses ” appliqué par Latreille (1805: 379) a Ph. subcoleoptrata est certes une traduc-
tion non littérale de ce nom latin, mais cela ne signifie nullement que l’auteur ait en vue
crassipennis. En effet:

—* Phasie ailes-épaisses *’ s’accompagne du nom latin Ph. subcoleoptrata et d’une
description dont les éléments sont tirés des diagnose et description de Syrphus
subcoleoptratus F. 1794 et non de celles de S. crassipennis;

—*‘ ailes-épaisses ’’ s’explique sans difficulté par ‘“‘ alis crassioribus ’’ dans sub-
coleoptrata de Fabricius 1794, voire par “‘ alis praemorsis externe crassioribus ”’
dans subcoleoptrata de Linné 1767;

—les deux publications nomenclatorialement significatives (180456, 1810) ne citent
pas de nom vernaculaire;

—un nom vulgaire ne fait jamais foi, a fortiori un néologisme qui ne représente que
le travestissement pseudo-vernaculaire d’un nom savant.

Lorsque Phasia crassipennis est citée, Latreille et ses continuateurs, manifestement
conscients d’une confusion possible, modifient la terminologie vernaculaire. L’on
trouve alors:

—dans Latreille 1817, “‘ Phasie coléoptériforme ’ pour subcoleoptrata (avec une
description comparable a celle de 1805), puis “‘ Phasie hémiptére ”’ et ‘‘ Phasie
ailes-épaisses ’’ pour hemiptera et crassipennis respectivement;

—dans Le Peletier & Serville 1825, “‘ Phasie ailes-épaisses ’’ pour leur subcoleop-
trata, mais “‘ Phasie crassipenne ” pour crassipennis;

—dans Dumeéril 1829, ‘‘ Théréve sous-engainante”’ pour subcoleoptrata, puis
““ Théréve hémiptére ” et ‘‘ Théréve crassipenne ” pour hemiptera et crassipennis
respectivement.

La traduction malheureuse de Latreille 1805 constitue une négligence banale qui
n’affecte en rien l’acception strictement fabricéenne de subcoleoptrata par cet auteur;
les remédes qu’y apportérent ultérieurement Latreille lui-méme et d’autres, montrent,
au demeurant, que les entomologistes francais ne s’y sont pas laissés prendre.

5 1805 p. 379-380: ‘‘ L’espéce représentée dans Schellenberg [1803] (tabl. 2, fig. ID) [lire
Tab. Il, fig. 2B] pour la présente [subcoleoptrata, mais sub. nom. “‘subcoleoptera’’] est plutét la
Théréve hémiptére de Fabricius ”’ (ce que confirme le texte non cité de Schellenberg p. 48-49).

§ 1809 p. 345: “ Conops subcoleoptratus Linnaei congener, sed a T. subcoleoptrata Fabricii
diversus videtur, ut indicant haec Linnaei verba: ‘“‘ abdomen ferrugineum apice nigro ”
(ce caractere linnéen, non cité par Fabricius, a également retenu l’attention de Girschner 1887:
419; malgré cela, l’identité des deux mouches est certaine car Ph. subcoleoptrata est le seul gros
Allophorina existant en Suéde centrale, terra typica de subcoleoptrata L.; All. hemiptera ne
dépasse pas la Scanie, cf. Ringdahl 1945).

* Pour cette raison, il me parait vain de rechercher si Latreille a connu ou non des échantil-
lons de subcoleoptrata. Saccorde a Sabrosky que Latreille aurait pu voir cette espéce dans la
collection Bosc. J’accorde a Herting que Ph. subcoleoptrata (de méme que Ph. musciformis,
s'il y a une différence spécifique) est rarissime en Europe occidentale et moyenne; il existe
cependant un record allemand plausible (Kréber 1910: 74) et des captures certaines en Pologne
(Draber Monko 1965: 126) et en Belgique (Maréchal 1931: 106, dét. J. Villeneuve).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137

(b) L’ étymologie de Phasia

Latreille n’a jamais donné l’étymologie de Phasia. Personnellement, jai trouvé
dans la frappante beauté des males d’Ectophasia (i.e. Phasia Latr. p.p.) que j’ai longue-
ment observés sur le terrain (1963: 152), une explication possible de ce nom, ce qui m’a
fait écrire (op. cit. p. 3): “‘j’y vois une allusion a l’apparence spectaculaire des males de
Phasia sensu R.D. (= Eeliohasie Town.) ...’’. La limite de ma propre expérience ne
préjuge en rien de |’étendue de celle de Latreille, aussi me garderai-je bien d’admettre
“ that Latreille probably thought of the crassipennis complex ” (Herting) a l’exclusion
de toute autre Phasia.

Au surplus, Latreille eut pu trés légitimement, pour le genre en sa totalité créer un
nom d’aprés une caractéristique qu’il n’aurait observée que chez une partie de ses
représentants. Cette pratique, parfaitement courante dans le baptéme des unités
taxonomiques®, n’a en droit aucune incidence ni sur la validité des noms, ni sur la
désignation des types de genres.

Latreille mentionne pour la premiére fois ‘‘ Ph. crassipennis”’ en 1809, non seule-
ment en indiquant sous ce nom la figure de Panzer 1800 (H. 74, pl. 15) déja citée par
Fabricius 1805, mais encore en précisant que “ figura domini Coquebert (J/lust.
Icon. Insect., dec. 3, tab. 23, fig. 11) varietatem exhibet ”’. Coquebert (1804) représentant
en réalité comme crassipennis une Ectophasia rubra, ceci prouve que Latreille savait
reconnaitre nos actuelles Ectophasia et n’ignorait pas totalement E. rubra.

Une confusion de sa part entre une Ectophasia et Phasia subcoleoptrata est donc
par suite fort improbable; elle est, en fait, totalement exclue, car la véritable confusion
de Latreille—tardive d’ailleurs—est celle de Phasia subcoleoptrata avec Allophora
hemiptera.

Cette confusion peut étre soupconnée a la lecture de Latreille 1817 qui, en regard de
description convenables (d’aprés les textes), donne la mention “ originale’ de sub-
coleoptrata aux environs de Paris, sans citer hemiptera de France. Elle est confirmée
par Le Peletier & Serville 1825 qui décrivent une A//. hemiptera indubitable (“‘ corselet
noir, ses cOtés et sa partie antérieure couverts de poils roux et dorés ’’) sous le nom de
Ph. subcoleoptrata. Ces auteurs, en effet, se prévalent de l’accord de Latreille et se
référent aux fig. 14 et 15, pl. 394 des Planches d’Insectes de l’Encyclopédie—publiées
vers 1818 sous la responsabilité de Latreille—qui sont la copie des pl. 13 et 14, H. 74
de Panzer 1800. Tout ceci permet de penser que Latreille, vers 1817, avait adopté
iui Panzer? (hemiptera sous le nom de subcoleoptrata) et explique ses indications

e localités.

En d’autres termes, la seule interprétation de subcoleoptrata propre a Latreille dont
on posséde un indice est tardive et partielle (ce qui laisse intacte toute l’oeuvre plus
ancienne) et ne correspond absolument pas a une Ectophasia, ce dont il convenait de
s’assurer.

8 Par exemple, Phania Meigen 1824: 219 est, en tant que nom “‘ von phanos, durchscheinend
hergeleitet ’’ (‘‘ transparent ” selon Meigen, plutdt que “ brillant” selon Lucas 1847: 721);
en tant que genre, Meigen l’utilise pour des mouches a abdomen transparent (obscuripennis,
vittata) ou totalement noir (thoracica, curvicauda).

9 Mon ae ar (inédite) de l’erreur de Panzer est la suivante: cet auteur figure Ect. crassi-
pennis (1800, H. 74, pl. 15), Ect. rubra et Allophora hemiptera, mais non Phasia subcoleoptrata
qu’il ne connait pas; étant donné que, sur la foi de Fabricius (1794: 284), il identifie 4 hemiptera
(1798 H. 59, pl. 15; 1804 pl. 71, fig. 6 et p. 88) la figure innominée de rubra par Schaeffer et sa
oe figure de rubra, il emploie fatalement, par élimination, le nom subcoleoptrata (1800,

H. 74, pl. 13-14) pour r hemiptera vraie.

Ni Fabricius, qui ne mentionne Panzer que tardivement (1805), ni Latreille (1809, 1817), ni
Fallén (1816, 1820) qui ne le citent que d’aprés Fabricius ne se sont apercus de cette erreur
relevée pour la premiére fois par Zetterstedt (1844: 1246). Le Peletier & Serville l’ont peut-étre,
pressentie, mais ils ont préféré, reprenant la citation peut probante de Linné par Latreille
(1809), admettre que Panzer et Fabricius avaient tous deux commis la méme erreur par
rapport a Linné.

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

II—VALIDITE DE L’IDENTIFICATION DE FABRICIUS

Herting admet que le matériel de Fabricius pour Th. subcoleoptrata appartient en
réalité a l’espéce Ectophasia rubra (Girschner) Dupuis. La remarque de Meigen sur
laquelle il fonde cette opinion ne doit évidemment pas éclipser l’oeuvre de Fabricius: il
faut donc examiner I’une et I’autre.

A—VALEUR DE LA REMARQUE DE MEIGEN

Meigen (1824: 186), 4 propos de Ph. crassipennis, s’exprime textuellement comme
suit: “‘ Eine kleinere Abanderung hat einen braungelben Hinterleib ohne schwarze
Strieme, und ganz braune Beine; alles Uebrige zeigt keine Verschiedenheit. Diesz ist
Ther. subcoleoptrata in Fabricius Museum, nur dasz die Beine roth sind.’’°

Cette remarque mérite certes un examen zoologique, mais encore convient-il de se
soucier de sa portée juridique.

1— Valeur zoologique

Vu le “ braungelben Hinterleib ohne schwarze Strieme ” de la variété de Meigen,
on peut penser, avec Herting, que le matériel de Kiel qui lui est comparé se rapporte a
Ectophasia rubra (Girschner) Dupuis.

Il faut toutefois exprimer deux réserves:

(a) Le matériel litigieux, dont Meigen ne donne aucune description propre, différe
par ses “‘ Beine roth” de la variété a ‘“‘ ganz braune Beine”’, elle-méme
décrite tres sommairement; la coloration des pattes, quoique fort variable,
présente chez les Ectophasia certaines tendances spécifiques encore a préciser,
de sorte qu’il est difficile d’affirmer que la différence constatée soit simplement
individuelle.

(b) Vu Vabsence de renseignements sur l’aile et l’imprécision méme de la formule
“‘kleinere Abanderung ”’, on ignore quel type de male peut représenter la
variété de référence; on peut toutefois admettre que la mention, par Meigen,
de divers males minorés de rubra comme autant d’espéces (brachyptera Pz.,
taeniata Pz., ancora Meg., diluta n. sp.) implique par élimination que les
males cités sous crassipennis sont typiques.

Ces réserves serviront a la Commission pour apprécier, si nécessaire, la probabilité
de la détermination proposée, mais l’absence de portée juridique de la remarque de
Meigen interdit de s’attarder sur ce point.

2— Valeur juridique

Toute la question est de savoir si le matériel auquel Meigen fait allusion! a la
valeur d’un type de Fabricius. A ceci s’opposent les faits suivants:

(a) le “ relevant material ” pour subcoleoptrata F. 1794, 1798 ne faisait pas partie

de la collection de Fabricius, lequel l’avait vu a Paris, dans la collection
Bosc (cf. Sabrosky 1966);

(b) Fallén, 1816, 1820, qui a redécrit subcoleoptrata d’aprés du matériel suédois
et l’a fait connaitre a Meigen (cf. 1824: 191), admettait la subcoleoptrata de
Fabricius (1794, 1798 et 1805) comme égale a la sienne;

(c) Meigen n’a pas considéré le matériel litigieux de Kiel comme un type, car
malgré sa remarque de la p. 186, il admet parfaitement p. 190 les acceptions

10 On notera “ kleinere Abanderung” (et non pas seulement “ kleine ...”) qui signifie
variété plus petite, et ‘* Diesz”’ (non “ dies”), forme archaique d’un pronom neutre (sans
rapport avec le féminin Abanderung), partie intégrante de la formule indéfinie “* Diesz ist ”’.

11 Meigen n’a précisé ni le nombre, ni l’origine de ce matériel. Sa présence—en 1823—et
son absence de nos jours (cf. Herting 1965) dans la collection de Fabricius n’ont rien d’inex-
plicable. On sait, par Wiedemann (1817b: 62-63), premier conservateur de cette collection,
que “‘es mag manchem Samler so gehen, wie es Fabricius selbst gegangen ist, dasz er zu
seiner einmal genauer untersuchten und bestimmten Art in der Folge ahnliche in die Samlung
hineinsteckt, welche sich bei genauerer Betrachtung doch noch hinlanglich verschieden finden,
um entweder einer andern schon bestimmten Art beigesellet, oder auch als noch iibersehene
neue Art aufgefiihrt zu werden ”.

Meigen, qui connaissait ces faits, s’est bien gardé de considérer comme type un matériel en
contradiction avec les textes; la disparition ultérieure de celui-ci peut s’expliquer par une
“ épuration ” précisément consécutive a sa remarque.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

de subcoleoptrata L. par Fabricius 1794, 1798, 1805 (cf. Sabrosky l.c.),
Latreille 1809, 1810 et Fallén 1820.

B—VALEUR DES TEXTES DE FABRICIUS

L’oeuvre de Fabricius quant aux Phasia (Syrphus p. p. 1794, Thereva 1798) est tout
a fait remarquable par l’emploi d’éléments de diagnose caractéristiques et par l’indica-
tion des localités et collections de référence.
(1) La création de Syrphus hemipterus pour lespéce anglaise (caractére suffisant!) de
Lewin a “ thorax antice et sub alae pilis fulvis nitidis ” (caractére suffisant!) est une
correction délibérée et définitive de l’identification antérieure, explicitement dubitative
(1775, 1781, 1787), de ce méme matériel a subcoleoptrata L.
(2) La création simultanée d’un S. crassipennis de France, a “ alae coriaceae, cinereae
limbo punctoque medio fuscis ” vaut assurément pour une Ectophasia, car ce genre,
absent d’Angleterre et de Scandinavie, posséde seul des miles a taches noires poncti-
formes sur I’aile.
(3) La redéfinition de S. subcoleoptratus, par son habitat en Suéde et son “ thorax
totus niger substriatus ”’, est tout aussi heureuse, les Ectophasia a thorax pollineux
n’atteignant pas la Scandinavie et hemiptera a pilosité thoracique rousse n’y existant,
au plus, qu’en Scanie et en Finlande (cf. Ringdahl 1945).
(4) La détermination erronée, en 1794, de la figure innominée de Schaeffer (1767, pl.
71, fig. 6) comme S. hemipterus!®, alors qu’il s’agit d’une Ectophasia rubra a thorax
doré, ailes 4 points noirs nets et abdomen rouge, nous prouve que Fabricius ne con-
naissait pas Ect. rubra.

Elle nous prouve, en outre, étant contemporaine de la création de crassipennis et de
la restauration de l’acception linéenne de subcoleoptrata,
(1°) que la crassipennis de Fabricius est une Ectophasia différente de rubra’ (c’est
donc rostrata Egger = strigata Girschner!%);
(2°) que la subcoleoptrata de Fabricius 1794 est également différente de rubra, ce qu’il
fallait démontrer.

III—CONSEQUENCES DES ACTIONS POSSIBLES

L’avantage éventuel de la conservation de “‘ Phasiinae ” ne devant pas introduire le
désordre aux échelons spécifique, générique et tribal j’examine ci-dessous, aux niveaux
taxonomiques successifs, les conséquences formelles, zoologiques et d’usage du
statu quo et de la proposition Herting.

A—A L’ECHELON SPECIFIQUE

1—Conséquences formelles

Le statu quo repose sur des binédmes classiques et fort anciens.

La proposition en litige présente, au contraire, l’inconvénient de faire appel a un
trindme, “ Phasia crassipennis rubra”, qui n’existe que dans Herting. Girschner n’a en
effet introduit (1888!, non 1886, p. 231) ni une espéce, ni une sous-espéce, mais seule-
ment une “ var. rubra”’ qu’il considére, au surplus, comme la ‘‘ Normalform ” [sic]
du “ Formenkreis ” qu’il a imaginé pour crassipennis.

En outre, l’emploi des noms récents rostrata Egger et rubra Girschner pour les
deux Ectophasia les plus répandues en Europe répond a un souci de clarté mais enfreint
la priorité, ce que j’ai souligné expressément (1963: 110, n. 1). Désigner rubra comme
type de Phasia équivaudrait donc a choisir sciemment une forme mal comprise par son
auteur méme et synonyme de noms plus anciens qui restent 4 déterminer.

12 Cette erreur, déja commise en 1787 (l’icéne de Schaeffer est donnée sous S. subcoleoptratus
sensu F. 1775, i.e. hemiptera F.) peut s’expliquer par l’abdomen parfois totalement roux de
certains males d’hemiptera. Elle est A Yorigine des confusions de Panzer (v. supra) qui, en
1798 (H. 59, p. 15) a représenté rubra sous le nom d’hemiptera, en renvoyant a Schaeffer 1767
et Fabricius 1794 et qui, en 1804, a réédité la figure de Schaeffer avec cette méme détermina-
tion. Girschner semble le premier A avoir noté que Panzer figurait une Ectophasia (1887:
385) et, plus précisément, E. rubra (cf. 1888: 232).

13 Ceci confirme, d’aprés les textes, l’acception de crassipennis que Herting (op. cit.) établit
d’aprés des “ types ” de Copenhague (douteux dans la mesure ou Fabricius 1794 indique pour
origine de son matériel; “‘ Mus. Dom Bosc i |

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2—Conséquences zoologiques

Le statu quo n’implique aucune conséquence zoologique particuliére 4 l’échelon
spécifique.

L’adoption de rubra comme type de Phasia risque d’entrainer une confusion entre
Phasia subcoleoptrata (L.) (mouche de Suéde a thorax noir) et Ectophasia rubra
(mouche a thorax pollineux absente de Scandinavie).

3—Conséquences quant a l’usage

En dehors de Herting, aucun auteur et, en particulier, aucun practicien n’ayant
encore adopté ma distinction de rubra et de crassipennis (cf. Dupuis 1957, 1963), le
choix de rubra comme type de Phasia ne reposerait sur aucune tradition d’usage
courant. Une telle tradition serait plut6t en faveur de “* Phasia crassipennis’”’ (cf.
Apstein 1915).
B—A L’ECHELON GENERIQUE

1—Conséquences formelles

Le statu quo est, en tous points, conforme aux régles de nomenclature et, notam-
ment, Phasia Latr. 1804 et Thereva F. 1798, l’un s’étant substitué a l’autre, ont le méme
type (cf. CNZ 67i): Th. subcoleoptrata (F.), espéce originellement incluse dans I’un et
lautre (cf. CNZ 67h).

L’adoption, comme type de Phasia, de rubra qui ne figure a l’origine ni dans
Thereva, ni dans Phasia, conduirait 4 enfreindre deux fois CNZ 67h. Une mesure
limitée a Phasia seule serait contraire a CNZ 67i et laissserait Thereva F. 1798, avec son
type subcoleoptrata, comme homonyme de Thereva Latr. 1796, sans autre nom de
remplacement que des synonymes plus ou moins subjectifs.

2—Conséquences zoologiques

Il est assez délicat, compte tenu des viscissitudes nomenclatoriales passées, de
définir le statut générique actuel de nombreuses Phasia, Allophora, Phorantha, etc. . .
anciennes du monde entier.

La restauration du statu quo, a laquelle j’ai procédé en 1949, est un moindre mal.

Au contraire, la suppression de l’acception originelle de Phasia Latr. (qu'il faudra
remplacer par Phorantha, synonyme subjectif) et l’introduction d’un Phasia s. nov.
(qui ne supprimera pas Ectophasia, vu leurs types spécifiquement différents) ne peuvent
que conduire a une complication supplémentaire.
3—Conséquences quant a l’usage

La restauration du statu quo est conforme a l’usage délibéré, constamment affirmé,
de prendre pour type de Phasia Latr., soit Th. subcoleoptrata F. (Latreille 1810), soit
Conops subcoleoptratus L. (Westwood 1840: 140), soit, lorsqu’il y a eu confusion,
Allophora hemiptera (F.) (Curtis 1838 pl. 697, Coquillet 1910: 587, Townsend 1912: 45,
1938: 65, Malloch 1929: 108), mais jamais une Ectophasia!

Elle n’est pas aussi méconnue de nos jours que l’affirme Herting. En dehors de mes
publications depuis 1949 et des travaux américains que cite Sabrosky (1966), on
trouve des usages corrects ou des mentions des genres Phasia s. Latr. ou Ectophasia
dans Malloch 1929, Villeneuve 1933, Shumakov 1958, Viktorov 1960, 1962a, b, 1964,
1965, Viktorov & Kozharina 1961, Coe 1962, Verbeke 1962 et peut-étre d’autres
encore.

La proposition Herting tend simplement 4 officialiser l’usage routinier de Phasia
sensu Robineau-Desvoidy 1830, largement répandu, 4 une époque ow 1’on n’observait
guére de régles nomenclatoriales, par Macquart, Meigen (1838: 283), Schiner, etc...
et surtout par le Catalogue de Bezzi (1907) dont les insuffisances sont bien connues
(cf. Herting 1960: 6).

C—AUX ECHELONS SUPERGENERIQUES
1—Conséquences nomenclatoriales

L’acceptation du statu quo, i.e. de subcoleoptrata, comme type de Phasia Latr.
entraine, évidemment, l’emploi d’Ectophasiini et Ectophasiinae et le rejet de Phasiini et
Phasiinae, car Phasianeae Robineau-Desvoidy 1830 est fondé sur Phasia R.D. =
Ectophasia Town. et non pas sur Phasia Latr.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141

La proposition de Herting tend avant tout a la conservation de Phasiinae. En
admettant qu’aucun autre nom n’ait la priorité!4, on peut se demander s’il est vraiment
nécessaire de changer pour cela le type de Phasia et sil n’efit pas mieux valu invoquer
CNZ 39a IP.
2—Conséquences zoologiques

Phasia Latr. et Ectophasia Town. appartiennent (contra Sabrosky!) au moins a
des sous-tribus différentes, respectivement celles des Allophorina et Ectophasiina,
bien distinctes par tous leurs caractéres (nervation, génitalia males et femelles, oeufs,
mode de ponte, larves aux trois stades) (cf. Dupuis 1963: 77-86 et contributions
antérieures).

Il est donc zoologiquement important de ne pas créer a la légére une sous-tribu
Phasiina‘® dont on ne saurait pas si elle correspond aux Allophorina ou aux Ectophasiina.
Phasia Latr. s. str. n’ayant encore jamais servi de type 4 un taxon supergénérique?’, la
reconnaissance de son acception originale écarte cette possibilité.

L’adoption de rubra comme type de Phasia entrainerait par contre l’emploi du
nom ambigu Phasiina pour Ectophasiina.
3—Conséquences du point de vue de l’usage :

“* Phasiinae ” est indubitablement trés employé (y compris sous forme vernaculaire),
mais avec des acceptions extrémement diverses et un contenu étonnamment fluctuant.
L’usage qu’on en fait est moins celui d’un taxon défini que d’une étiquette commode.

L’emploi d’Ectophasiinae comme conséquence de statu quo des types de genres, du
fait méme qu’il se trouverait chez les auteurs 4 venir, aurait quelque chance de corres-
pondre a une entité taxonomique plus épurée que naguére Phasiinae, tandis que
Vadoption de la proposition Herting ne remédierait en rien 4 la situation actuelle.

RESUME, CONCLUSIONS ET CONTRE-PROPOSITIONS

Compte tenu des précisions ci-dessus, on peut admettre que Latreille a trop utilisé
les textes pour avoir une connaissance personnelle de Phasia subcoleoptrata et que le
matériel vu sous ce nom dans la collection Fabricius par Meigen peut se rapporter a
Ectophasia rubra.

Ces constatations zoologiques qui sont, 4 quelques nuances prés, celles de Herting,
n’entrainent cependant aucune des conclusions nomenclatoriales qu’en a tirées notre
collégue.

Les actions taxonomiques de Latreille, uniquement fondées sur les textes de
Fabricius sont valides, indépendamment de toute consultation de matériel. Au
demeurant, lorsque Latreille a confondu Ph. subcoleoptrata avec une autre espéce,
c’est—en 1817—avec Allophora hemiptera et non pas avec E. rubra.

En ce qui concerne Fabricius, tout indique, et Meigen en avait jugé ainsi, que le
materiel litigieux n’est pas le type de sa subcoleoptrata. Au surplus, les textes parfaite-
ment clairs de Fabricius montrent qu’il n’a pu confondre E. rubra qu’avec Allophora
hemiptera p.p.

Seules d’impérieuses considérations d’usage pourraient donc, le cas échéant,
conduire a remettre en question, quant au type de Phasia, ce que les travaux de Fabri-

14 Je pense 4 Cylindromyiinae, car Ocypteratae Robineau-Desvoidy in Blainville 1826
(fondé sur Ocyptera R.D. non Latr. 1804 = Cylindromyia Meig. 1803) a priorité de ligne sur
Phasianeae R.D. in Blainville 1826. II est possible, en effet, que ce nom doive étre considéré
comme publié au sens du CNZ, car le rapport imprimé de Blainville a été analysé dans le
Bull. des Sc. nat. et de Géol. de Férussac (t. 10, 1827, pp. 316-318), était connu de Latreille
1829 et existe dans les bibliothéques.

15 Ectophasia étant le synonyme récent valide de Phasia R.D. et ce dernier un homonyme
récent de Phasia Latr., ni CNZ 40, ni CNZ 39a I n’autorisent comme je I’ai cru (1963: 33) la
conservation de Phasiinae.

16 Pour cette raison, toute mesure conservatoire (que je ne demande pas) qui pourrait étre
prise, indépendamment de la proposition Herting, en faveur de Phasiinae ne devrait concerner
que : nom de sous-famille, 4 l’exclusion des noms de tribus (ce que je demanderais si néces-
saire).

_ 1? Phasiina Townsend 1912: 45 est fondé sur Phasia sensu Curtis 1838, Coquillett 1910,
i.e. Allophora R.D.

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

cius et de Latreille présentent chacun de magistralement conforme aux exigences
nomenclatoriales modernes.

Un examen des conséquences d’une désignation de rubra comme type de Phasia
laisse augurer d’inconvénients nomenclatoriaux, taxonomiques et d’usage, aux divers
échelons taxonomiques infra-subfamiliaux et du seul avantage—peut-étre provisoire—
d’une conservation du nom de sous-famille Phasiinae.

Ce n’est pas 1a un impératif suffisant pour bouleverser ce qui existe sur une base
formellement et zoologiquement incontestable.

En conséquence, je présente les contre-propositions suivantes: Afin d’éviter toute
confusion et de préserver la stabilité de la nomenclature, la Commission internationale
de Nomenclature Zoologique usera de ses pouvoirs normaux pour placer:

(1) dans la Liste officielle des noms de genres acceptés en Zoologie, les deux noms de

genres:

—Phasia Latreille 18045 (genre féminin), espéce type: Thereva subcoleoptrata
(F. 1798) désignée valablement par Latreille 1810;

—Ectophasia Townsend 1912 (genre féminin), espéce type: Syrphus crassi-
_pennis F. 1794 désignée valablement par Townsend 1912;

(2) dans la Liste officielle des noms d’espéces acceptés en Zoologie les deux noms

d’espéces:

—subcoleoptrata L. 1767 tel qu’il figure valablement dans Thereva subcoleop-
trata (F. 1798) (espéce type de Phasia Latreille 1804);

—crassipennis F. 1794 tel qu’il figure valablement dans Syrphus crassipennis
F. 1794 (espéce type d’Ectophasia Townsend 1912).

REFERENCES ABREGEES AUX TRAVAUX CITES

ApstTEIN, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitz. -Ber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin,

p. 166

Bezzi, M. 1907. Tachinidae in Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren, Bd. 3, pp.
189-597

Coz, R.L. 1962. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Belgrade, Sc. biol., 18, p. 130

CoqueserT, A. J. 1804 (An XII). Illustratio iconographica insectorum..... Tabu-
larum decas tertia, pl. XXIII, fig. 11 et p. 103

CoquiLLeTT, D. W. 1910. The type species of the North American genera of
Diptera. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 37, p. 587

Curtis, J. 1838. British entomology, pl. 697

DRABER-Monko, A. 1965. Monographie der paladarktischen Arten der Gattung
AlophoraR.D. Ann. Zool., Warszawa, 23, pp. 69-194

Dumerit, A. M. C. 1829. Article “ Théréve” in Dictionnaire des Sc. nat., t. 54,
pp. 257-259

Dupuis, C. 1949. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat., 2e s., 21, pp. 243-247

—— 1957. C. R. Acad. Sc., 245, pp. 1579-1580

___ 1963. Essai monographique sur les Phasiinae. Mém. Mus. nat. Hist. nat.,
n.s., A. Zool., 26, pp. 1-461

Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, p. 764

1781. Species insectorum, t. II, p. 423

1787. Mantissa insectorum, p. 335

1794. Entomologia systematica, t. 4, pp. 283-284

1798. Entomologia systematica, Suppl., pp. 560-561

1805. Systema antliatorum, pp. 217-218

FALLEN, C. F. 1816. K. Vet. Akad. Handl., Stockholm (1815), pp. 229-240

—— 1820. Diptera Sueciae, vol. IJ, Fam. 13: Rhizomyzides, p. 2

GirscHNER, E. 1887. Die europiischen Arten der Dipterengattung Alophora.
Zeitschr. f. Naturwiss., 60, pp. 375-426

——— 1888. Ueber die Artgrenze der Phasia crassipennis. Entom. Nachrichten, 14,
pp. 225-234

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143

HERTING, B. 1960. Biologie der westpaliarktischen Raupenfliegen, Dipt. Tachinidae.
Monogr. z. angew. Ent., 16, pp. 1-188

—— 1965. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22, pp. 243-245

Kroser, O. 1910. Verhandl. Ver. naturw. Unterh. Hamburg, 14 (1907-1909), p. 74

LATREILLE, P. A. 1796(An V). Précis des caractéres génériques des Insectes, p. 167

—— 1802 (An X). Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des
Insectes, t. 3, pp. 440, 456

—— 1803 (An XI). Article “‘ Mouche” in Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. appl. aux
Arts, t. 15, p. 122

—— 1804a (An XII). Article “ Théréve ” in Ibid., t. 22, p. 137

—— 18046 (An XII). Tableau méthodique des Insectes in Ibid., t. 24, p. 195

—— 1805 (An XIII). Histoire Naturelle générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des
Insectes, t. 14, pp. 379-380

—— 1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum t. 4, pp. 296 (Thereva), 344-345
(Phasia)

—— 1810. Table des genres avec l’indication de lespéce qui leur sert de type in
Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes
des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes, p. 444

— 1817. Article “ Phasie” in Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. appl. aux Arts, Nelle
édit., t. 25, pp. 504-506

—— 1829. Les Crustacés, les Arachnides et les Insectes distribués en familles
naturelles, t. 2, p. 508

Le PELETIER, A. & SERVILLE, A. 1825. Article “‘ Phasie ” in Encycl. méthodique,
Insectes, t. 10, pt 1, pp. 97-98, pl. 394, fig. 14-15

Lucas, H. 1847. Article ‘‘ Phania” in [d’Orbigny] Dictionnaire universel d’Hist.
Nat., t. 9, pp. 721-722

MaLttocu, J. R. 1929. Proc. linn. Soc. New South Wales, 54, p. 108

MARECHAL, P. 1931. Lambillionea, 31, p. 106

MEIGEN, J. W. 1803. [llliger’s] Mag. f. Insekt.-Kunde, 2, pp. 279-280

—— 1820. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europaischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten. 2. Theil, p. 115

—— 1824. Ibid. 4. Theil, pp. 185-186, 190-191, 218

' —— 1838. Ibid. 7. Theil, p. 283

PANZER, G. W. F. 1798. Faunae insectorum germanicae, H. 59, pl. 15 (‘* Thereva
hemiptera’”’), pl. 20 (‘* Musca nebulosa ”)

—— 1800. Ibid. H. 74, pl. 13-14 (“ Thereva subcoleoptrata’’), pl. 15 (‘* Thereva
crassipennis ”’)

—— 1804. D. J. C. Schaefferi Icones Insectorum Ratisbonensium ... illustratae
et indice systematico auctae .. . Editio nova t. 4, pl. 71, fig. 6 et p. 88

RINGDAHL, O. 1945. Ent. Tidskr., 66, p. 195

ROBINEAU-Desvoipy, J.B. 1826. inde Blainville, H. M., Rapport sur les Myodaires
du Dr Robineau-Desvoidy, lu dans la séance de l’Académie des Sciences, le
2 octobre 1826... 8°, Paris 1826, pp. 1-24

—— 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires, p. 289

SABROSKY, C. W. 1966. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 23, p. 9-11

SCHAEFFER, J. C. 1767. Icones insectorum circa ratisbonam indigenorum, vol. 1,
pl. 71, fig. 6 (pour 1a 2e édit., cf. Panzer 1804)

SCHELLENBERG, J. R. 1803. Genres des mouches Diptéres (Gattungen der Fliegen)
Zurich, tabl. II fig. 2 et pp. 48-49

SHUMAKOV, E. M. 1958. Trudy vsiess. Inst. Zashtsh. Rast., pp. 312-321

TOWNSEND, C.H.T. 1912. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 14, p. 45

—— 1938. Manual of Myiology, pt. 7, p. 65 ‘

VERBEKE, J. 1962. Explor. hydrobiol. lacs Kivu. Edouard et Albert, Rés. sc. 3 (4),
pp. 79-187

VikToROV, G. A. 1960. Vriednaia Tscherepashka, t. 4, pp. 231-sq

—— 1962a. Zool. Zhurnal, 41, p. 72

—— 19626. XII. int. Congr. Ent., Wien, Verhandl., 2, pp. 721-sq

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Vixtorov, G. A. 1964. Dokl. Ak. Nauk SSSR, 159, pp. 230-232

— 1965. XIIIth int. Congr. Ent., London, Proc., p. 374

Vixtoroyv, G. A. & KozHarina, N. PH. 1961. Zool. Zhurnal, 40, pp. 52-59
VILLENEUVE, J. 1933. Bull. & Ann. Soc. ent. Belg., 73, pp. 195-199
WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, p. 140
WIEDEMANN, C. R. W. 1817a. [Wiedemann’s] Zool. Magazin, Bd I, St. 1, p. 6
— 1817b. Ibid, Bd. I, St. 1, pp. 62-63

— 1818. Ibid, Bd. I, St. 2, p. 45

— 1830. Auszereuropiische zweifliigelige Insekten, 2. Theil, p. 262, n. 1
ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1844. Diptera Scandinaviae, t. 3, p. 1246

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145

ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION AGAINST THE
SUPPRESSION OF NOMINA DUBIA Z.N(AS.) 1715
(see volume 22, pages 265-266)

By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

The proposal that a Declaration be promulgated establishing an official policy
against suppression of nomina dubia would, if adopted, be more detrimental than
helpful to progress in taxonomy. Therefore I strongly urge that the proposal be denied.

2. It is true that any given nomen dubium may never become a nomen clarum: that
if it does it may not be a threat to another, well-established name; and that it might
belong to some species otherwise unnamed, whereupon its earlier suppression would
require otherwise unnecessary duplication of name. However, the proposal already
embodies the point that rarely do these events transpire.

3. On the contrary, it is commonplace for nomina dubia to act as vexatious thorns
obstructing taxonomic progress. As long as they exist, they fester. Untold hours of
effort that could far better be directed into more constructive channels are lost in the
rarely successful attempt to convert a placeless nomen dubium into a nomen clarum.
There comes a point of diminishing return where it would be a travesty to the intent
and purpose of the Code for the Commission to refuse to call a halt to the otherwise
endless search. Is this not the “‘ confusion” which the Commission is dedicated to
reduce? Is it not a contribution to stability to remove uncertainty ?

4. Surely refusal by the London Congress then (1958) to take a stand does not
imply or warrant the inference that no stand should be taken at a later time. The only
justified inference, lacking a statement to the contrary, is that a stand would not, or
could not, be taken at the time. This could mean no more than absence at that time of
sufficient unanimity of opinion to justify a stand.

5. Certainly suppression of a name for purposes of the Law of Priority but not of
Homonymy would still leave the name to be reckoned with in synonymies; there is in
fact no possible way to strike a name from catalogs and indices, once published therein,
and once entered they have to be cited at least to the extent of sourcing the elimination.
Better to cite one opinion eliminating a name than any number of essays trying to pin
it down!

6. If the policy of facilitation of retirement of nomina dubia by suppression upon
request is sound, as I urge it is, then it may be construed equally sound to permit
retirement of them, again upon request, by designation of neotypes. Inasmuch as each
case must be considered separately, adequate opportunity exists for the requisite
censorship of the propriety of the proposed procedure in any given case, by either the
route of suppression or the route of erection of a neotype. The cases are not likely to
be overwhelming in number, but if they become burdensome the docket can be relieved
by any of several devices utilized in civil courts. Burdensome or not, the service rendered
is one of the most useful contributions the Commission can make toward attainment of
the goals stated in the Preamble to its own Code. The sacrifice of time and effort thus
required pays limitless dividends in savings of time and effort by untold numbers of
taxonomists now and in perpetuity.

7. Retirement of nomina dubia through transformation to nomina clara might be
effected—if authorized by the Code—by approval of arbitrary allocation. However,
the problems created exceed the problems solved because of the frequent difficulty of
determining incontrovertibly the earliest ‘ valid ’’ ‘‘ subsequent clarification ” and of
making clear that this particular allocation must take precedence over all others in the
eyes of all workers. It is therefore here strongly recommended that the Code make
explicitly clear that (A) automatic retirement (i.e. without individual consideration
by the Commission) of nomina dubia can be effected only by (1) discovery of criteria
that render them nomina clara, and by (2) erection of neotypes: and that (B) retirement
by (1) suppression or (2) “‘ subsequent clarification ’’ must be authorized by individual
consideration by the Commission.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR ACTION ON THE NAME VOLUTA
MITRA LINNAEUS, 1758 (GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1728
(see volume 22, pages 355-356)

By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

I have read the proposal of Dr. Eugene Coan with interest since I am at the moment
critically studying the marine mollusca of Polynesia, of which the species under
discussion forms a conspicuous element.

At the outset I must point out that alternative (B), as outlined by Coan, cannot be
entertained by the Commission since Voluta mitra Linnaeus is, in my opinion, not a
nomen dubium, since it covers both varieties—episcopalis and papalis, and must be
restricted to one or the other of these varieties as a synonym.

It is my conviction that we should follow Linnaeus’ later judgement, as expressed
in the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae, 1764, and the twelfth edition of the Systema Naturae,
1767, and consider Voluta mitra a distinct species, and the trivial names episcopalis and
papalis as denoting varieties, the former being the nominal form. I agree with Dodge
(1955, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 107 : 121-123) in this particular.

Coan’s statement that most authors have abandoned the use of Voluta mitra is
correct as far as concerns works published in the last century and in the early part of
the twentieth century. But it is not true if one considers recent workers. I have gone
through rather carefully publications that have appeared in the last twenty-five years,
and have found only one in which Mitra episcopalis is used; this is the Handbuch der
Paleozoologie, Band 6: Gastropoda, Teil 6, 1943 by Wenz, who apparently followed
Thiele (1931, Handbuch Syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 340). All the other works consulted,
twelve in all, published in the years 1941-65, use Mitra mitra. And these include many
widely used handbooks and manuals. It is apparent, therefore, that the combination
Mitra mitra (Linnaeus) has come into general use by most professional and amateur
malacologists in the last decades, and to return to Mitra episcopalis (Linnaeus) would
create more confusion than stability.

I, therefore, request that the International Commission take the following action:

(1) Suppress the varietal name episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the

combination Voluta mitra episcopalis for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
(2) Place the specific name mitra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Voluta mitra, and papalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Voluta mitra papalis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) Place the specific name episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina-
tion Voluta mitra episcopalis on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology.

By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

It is my conviction that the request by Eugene Coan is in the interests of stability in
that the usage of the combination Mitra episcopalis was consistent until very recent
years, and the adoption of Mitra mitra by later authors has been by no means unani-
mous.

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS FOUR RICHARDSON FISH
NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1740

By W. L. Chan (Fisheries Research Station, Hong Kong)
(see present volume, pages 62-64)

I support in principle the application made by Whitehead (1966, Bull. zool.
Nomencl., 23 (1) :62-64)to suppress four fish names proposed by Richardson (1846,
Rept. Fish. Seas China Japan). In addition, application is made here to suppress for
the same reasons a fifth Richardson fish name, Clupea flosmaris.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147

2. While agreeing with Whitehead that the four names should be suppressed, I
would like to add some comments on the identity of the three clupeid species involved,
based on a knowledge of Chinese vernacular names used in Hong Kong waters.
The Chinese names are written below each of the Reeves illustrations of the three
clupeid fishes and are recorded by Richardson (Joc. cit.). These names are still used by
Hong Kong fishermen, but not for the species indicated by Whitehead (1966, Bull.
Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. Zool., 14(2) : 15-54). But, although my identifications differ from
those of Whitehead, each Richardson name still pre-dates a name which is commonly
used in the literature; I therefore agree with Whitehead that the Richardson names
should be suppressed.

3. The identity of the Richardson species can be commented on briefly.

(i) Clupea isingleena Richardson, 1846. Whitehead (Joc. cit.) identified the holotype
as Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes, 1847). I have shown elsewhere (Chan, 1965.
Jap. J. Ichthyol., 13 : 1-39 and figs. 7a, 8a and b) that the scales of the holotype differ
from those of S. fimbriata; they more nearly resemble those of Sardinella brachysoma
Bleeker, 1852. Moreover, the Reeves drawing (No. 60), which Richardson identified
with his C. isingleena, bears a Chinese ideogram which can be rendered as Tsing-lun,
i.e. green scale, a name which is nowadays applied to specimens of S. brachysoma in
Hong Kong waters. The Reeves illustration itself bears a very close likeness to the
“* hypselosoma ” form of Sardinella brachysoma. However, Bleeker’s name brachysoma
is as firmly entrenched in the literature as Valenciennes’ name fimbriata, whereas
Richardson’s name isingleena is a nomen oblitum. In the interests of stability, Richard-
son’s name should be suppressed, whatever the true identity of the species.

(ii) Clupea nymphaea Richardson, 1846. Identified by Whitehead as Sardinella
aurita Valenciennes, 1846, on the basis of Richardson’s description and the Reeves’
illustration (No. A 25), the type now being lost. The fish is entitled Cheung-yiu Lun,
i.e. long-waisted scale, both in the illustration and in the text by Richardson. This
name is nowadays applied to specimens of Sardinella jussieu (Lacepéde, 1803), i.e.
’ S. gibbosa (Bleeker, 1849) of some authors. Richardson (Joc. cit.) gives a pelvic fin ray
count of 9 for Clupea nymphaea, which is characteristic of S. aurita (8 only in S.
jussieu). Thus, there is no certainty that the Reeves illustration refers to the same
species as the Richardson text. Once again, I support Whitehead’s application to
suppress the Richardson name, which has been constantly misapplied in the literature.

(iii) Clupea caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846. There is no type specimen, only a
Reeves illustration (No. 59), which Whitehead (/oc. cit.) identified as probably Sardi-
nella leiogaster Valenciennes, 1847. The Reeves illustration is labelled Wong-tsark,
i.e. golden hue, a name which is nowadays definitely applied to Sardinella aurita
Valenciennes, 1847. The figure is not inconsistent with that species. Richardson’s
name, which is in any case a nomen oblitum, should be suppressed, whatever the true
any of the species, since the names aurita and /eiogaster are both widely used in the
iterature.

(iv) Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1846. I support Whitehead’s application for
the suppression of this nomen oblitum, which is otherwise a senior synonym of the
well-known Japanese freshwater eel, Anguilla japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1846.

4. Clupea flosmaris Richardson, 1846 was based solely on a Reeves illustration
(No. 64), labelled with the Chinese name Hoi-hor, i.e. sea lily. This species was identi-
fied by Whitehead (Joc. cit.) as possibly a member of either Herklotsichthys or Sardi-
nella. But this Chinese name nowadays definitely refers to the round herring Dus-
sumieria acuta Valenciennes, 1847 and the illustration is consistent with a small specimen
of this species. Richardson’s name is a nomen oblitum and should be suppressed.

5. (i) Application is made to the International Commission for Zoological Nomen-
clature to use its plenary powers to suppress the following name for the purposes of the

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:
Clupea flos-maris Richardson, 1847.

(ii) The Commission is requested to place the following name on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
flos-maris Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen C/lupea flos-maris.
(iii) The Commission is requested to place the following name on the Official List

of Specific names in Zoology:
acuta Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Dussumieria acuta.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THREE
NOMINA OBLITA IN THE FAMILY BELONIDAE (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1723
(see volume 22, pages 325-329)

By G. F. Mees (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

In my revisions of the family Belonidae (Mees 1962, 1964), it was demonstrated that
several species of this group are far wider ranging than was previously known. One of
the results of this was a great simplification in nomenclature: species which previously,
in different parts of their range, had been known by different specific names, and some-
times even as different genera, retained one name throughout their ranges. In actual
figures, the family Belonidae was reduced from a lowest estimate of some sixty species
(for which twenty generic names were available) to twenty-four species, divided over
two genera. Over thirty specific names were placed in synonymy for the first time.
With such a drastic reduction of species, inevitably many changes in nomenclature
were necessary. Sometimes a single species had been known by five and more names
in different parts of its range, each name being well-established and “ in general use ”
in a certain region. Basing myself on the principles of priority and clarity of description
(some names date from 150 and more years ago, a time when few species of Belonidae
were known and the importance of certain characters was not yet realized), I have
used the names that on this basis appeared to be the best ones. As each of these old
names has a different history, I had to make a separate decision for each name and
species, and though I have tried to be consistent, subjectivity could not altogether be
avoided: a name rejected by another worker as unidentifiable might be acceptable to
me, or vice versa, but I have in each instance clearly stated my reasons for accepting
one name and rejecting as unidentifiable another.

Collette & Berry (1965, 1966) disagree with many of my decisions, and have
proposed suppression of three specific names I have used. Their proposals are largely
based on Art. 23b of the Code, which at present it is proposed to suspend, as it was
found to be unworkable (cf. Smith, 1964; Robins, 1965). I shall discuss these names,
and two others which have been accepted by Collette & Berry, though they had been
rejected by me. As Collette & Berry have presented very ably one side of the picture,
I shall try to present the other point of view, so that the Commission can consider both,
and make its decisions accordingly.

Esox imperialis Rafinesque, 1810

This name was accepted by me as Belone imperialis (Rafinesque), as it was based on
a Belone species in the Mediterranean which was described as much larger and rarer
than the common Belone bellone. There are some discrepancies in the description (the
number of finrays in D and A as given is too high), but as only two species of Belone
were known from the Mediterranean, and the species under discussion reaches a
length of over 1-50 m, it appeared recognizable*.

Collette & Berry have since mentioned the occurrence of Belone marisrubri in the
Mediterranean, which would invalidate one of my arguments. Unfortunately they do
not give any particulars about this interesting record. Belone marisrubri was not
recorded for the Mediterranean by Tortonese (1964), and as the species is very common
in the Red Sea one might assume that it has recently reached the Mediterranean through

Bie & ae oe LL EEE

* Collette & Berry (1966: 327) came with the amazing statement that: “‘. . . a large propor-
tion of the museum specimens of Belone belone [recte: Belone bellone] and Tylosurus acus that
we have examined have been misidentified, so we see no reason to assume that Rafinesque
necessarily distinguished between them ”. Rafinesque (1810), as well as Mongitore (1743),
and Cirino (1653), to whom Rafinesque referred, made quite clear that they knew the ordinary
Belone bellone, and distinguished a second much larger species from it. Full quotations of the
relevant passages in these somewhat scarce publications can be found in my revisions (Mees,
1962: 40-41, 1964: 319-320). One wonders if Collette & Berry found so many specimens in
collections apparently misidentified because they did not realize that many specimens of
Belone bellone in collections are labelled as Belone acus Risso, not acus (La Cepéde).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the Suez Canal. The name Belone imperialis dates from many years before the Suez
Canal was opened. A point in favour of B. imperialis is also that it is this species which
amongst Italian fishers is known as Aguglia Imperial, the common name also mention-
ed by Rafinesque and in older literature. The official Spanish name is Aguja imperial
(Rey, 1947: 603).

Collette & Berry (1966: 327) have proposed rejection of the specific name imperialis
not on the basis of inapplicability, but as: “‘ The name imperialis has apparently not
been used as a senior synonym since its original description, except by Mees (1962,
1964) and Tortonese (1963) ”’.

As Collette & Berry refer to Tortonese (1963), it is difficult to understand how they
arrived at their opinion, for in the paper mentioned reference is made to the following
publications in which the name imperialis (Rafinesque) is used as the name of the species
under discussion: Moreau, 1881; Vinciguerra, 1885; Carus, 1893; D’Ancona, 1931;
Tortonese & Trotti, 1949; Lanfranco, 1958. To show that there was not a gap in its
use between 1810 and 1881, I further mention Bonaparte (1849). Several of these
publications refer to more literature in which the names Belone imperialis (Rafinesque)
or Tylosurus imperialis (Rafinesque) have been used, and far from being a nomen
oblitum (Collette & Berry, 1965: 391) it appears that the specific name imperialis has
been in almost continuous use for a century and a half, and is the name that has been
the most widely used for the species under discussion in publications dealing with the
fish fauna of the Mediterranean. It has also been used for the species in West-Africa
(Cadenat & Marchal, 1963: 1303). A further strong point in its favour is that, to the
best of my knowledge, it has never been misapplied.

Sphyraena acus La Cepéde, 1803

Collette & Berry have advocated the use of Sphyraena acus La Cepéde, 1803, for the
species called Belone imperialis by me. My reasons for rejecting the name have been
given in full (Mees, 1962: 69-70). When La Cepéde proposed the name, based on one
of Plumier’s drawings, he believed it to be a Sphyraena. The name was assigned to
the proper genus by Valenciennes (in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846: 319), who noted
that the species was: ‘‘ tout-a-fait impossible 4 déterminer ”’. At this the matter was left
until 1887 when Jordan & Fordice considered it ‘* probable ”’ that Sphyraena acus was
applicable to this species. That they were still uncertain about the species involved is
apparent from the fact that they distinguished it from “* Tylosurus caribbaeus ” which is
the same species. In North American literature, Jordan & Fordice have been followed
widely, the words “ probable ” and “‘ without much doubt ” which accompany their
opinion being deleted by later workers.

Collette & Berry have proposed placing the name Sphyraena acus on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology, though admitting that it is ‘‘ poorly described ”’.
Doubtless they suppose that this will best serve stability. However, as I have already
demonstrated in the discussion of Esox imperialis, they are not sufficiently familiar
with the European literature, for in Europe is a Belone acus Risso, 1826, which, though
a synonym of Belone bellone, has been used very extensively in European literature
(perhaps sometimes to avoid tautonymy). Thus there was a Belone acus in literature
twenty years before Valenciennes placed Sphyraena acus La Cepéde in the genus
Belone. Superfluous to say that Belone acus Risso and Belone acus (La Cepéde) are
different species, and that introduction of the name acus (La Cepéde) into European
literature will lead to considerable confusion, and has done so already (Albuquerque,
1954: 439). There are literally hundreds of references to Belone acus Risso in literature,
in popular and semi-popular literature, and also in scientific literature at least up to
1955 (Svetovidov, 1955).

Even subsequent to Jordan & Fordice (1887) the name acus (La Cepéde) has been
interpreted differently, for example by Metzelaar (1919), and moreover the name
caribbaea (lapsus for carribaea Lesueur) continued to be used.

Esox belone Var. Maris rubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801
There is no doubt about the identity of the name marisrubri, which was based on a
description by Forskal, but Collette & Berry have asked for its suppression in order to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

save Belona crocodila Lesueur, 1821, which is a synonym twenty years its junior.

The species listed as Belone marisrubriin my revisions is of circumtropical distribu-
tion, a fact that had not previously been recognized. Names in general use for it were:
crocodila Lesueur, 1821 (Indo-Pacific), choram Riippell, 1837 (Red Sea and Indian
Ocean), raphidoma Ranzani, 1842 (Atlantic and West Indies), annulata Valenciennes,
1846 (Indo-Pacific), gigantea Temminck & Schlegel, 1846 (Indo-Pacific), robusta
Giinther, 1866 (Red Sea, east coast of Africa), fodiator Jordan & Gilbert, 1882 (East
Pacific). Less often the names coromandelica van Hasselt, 1823, timucoides van
Hasselt, 1824, and several others are found in literature.

Here is an instance where over a large part of its range the name of the species had
to be changed anyway, and where I have used an almost forgotten name (marisrubri),
on the grounds of clear priority over any of the many names in current use.

Collette & Berry have proposed suppression of the name marisrubri, in order to
save for use, from the array of available names, the next one in seniority, Belona
crocodila Lesueur, which they correctly claim has been widely used in literature. They
specifically mention its use by Weber & de Beaufort (1922) and in other well-known
handbooks. The situation is however far more complicated than as presented by
them. Collette & Berry’s proposal could easily give the impression that crocodila was
the most used name for the species in the Indo-Pacific, but in fact the two names most
generally used in this area are annulata Valenciennes, 1846, and gigantea Temminck &
Schlegel, 1846. Weber & de Beaufort (1922) for example stated quite clearly that they
had not personally examined specimens they could ascribe to crocodila and that their
description was entirely compiled from literature. The same pertains to several other
works: crocodila was but compiled from literature, and for actual material the names
gigantea and annulata were used, disagreement existing as to which of these two names,
both published in 1846, had priority. In more recent years Fowler (1922) has also
revived the name Belona indica Lesueur, 1821, for this same species, in which he has
found some following (Munro, 1958). The name indica is in my opinion indetermin-
able, but it was proposed in the same paper as Belona crocodila and adds to the general
confusion.

Where such confusion exists, I certainly believe that it is preferable by far to follow
the law of priority and use the name Belone marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, rather than
arbitrarily select Belone crocodila, a name that in recent literature has almost universally
been misunderstood. The facts that the identity of B. marisrubri is certain, and that it
has twenty years priority over the next available name, which gives it a greater chance
a survival in case other old names are found in future, add to the arguments in its

avour.

Since the publication of my revision, the name marisrubri has been used by Wood-
land & Slack-Smith (1963) and Whitley (1964).

Belona argalus Lesueur, 1821

This is also a name which I have discussed and rejected (Mees, 1962: 70-71). There
is very little I can add to my earlier notes. Collette & Berry (1965: 391) remark that:
“the number of fin rays given in the text is correct ..... ”. Previously I had only
cautiously observed that: ““..... the finray numbers D 16, A 19 are rather high for
B. platyura in the West Indies ”’. In 28 specimens from the West Indies the maximum
finray number I found was D 14, A 19 and the maxima recorded by Berry & Rivas
(1962) for this region, in as far as I can make out 26 specimens, are the combinations
D 14, A 19 and D 15, A 18. Therefore not a single one of 54 specimens examined has
the finray formula presented by Lesueur, and though it is very well possible that finray
numbers as high as recorded by Lesueur do occasionally occur, it is far fetched, in view
of the other discrepancies of the description, that Lesueur would have had such an
exceptional individual.

Collette & Berry (1965: 391) have taken out of its context a remark made by me,
and state that Lesueur’s figure shows a depressed caudal peduncle. In the text, how-
ever, Lesueur compares the caudal peduncle with that of B. truncata (= B. houttuyni
of my revisions), and the finray numbers given by him, D 16, A 19, agree also with
that species, in which I found D 13-17, A 16-19.

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Therefore I see no reason to alter my previous opinion that: ‘“‘ Perhaps the most
likely explanation of the many discrepancies in text and figure is that both are compo-
site, assembled from different field notes and sketches.”

In this connection I do not quite understand why Collette & Berry choose to defend
the name argalus, when elsewhere they reject names for the simple reason of having
been rarely used. For in the whole Indo-Pacific this species has for long been general-
ly known as Belone platyura Bennett, 1832, the name also used by me, and in the
West-Indies the name in general use was Strongylura (or Tylosurus) ardeola. The
name Belone argalus was introduced for this species by Fowler (1919), and subsequently
used only a few times. As I have demonstrated (Mees, 1962: 37) the name Belone
ardeola Valenciennes, 1846, almost certainly applies to Belone houttuyni, but anyway,
Belone platyura Bennett has clear priority over it, and is the name that has had by far
the widest use in literature, not only in the Indo-Pacific, but also in the Eastern Atlantic
(Cadenat & Marchal, 1963; Cadenat & Roux, 1964) so that it is fortunate that it can be
retained for the species.

Esox Houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, versus Esox marinus Walbaum, 1792

These two names, together with a third one that might apply to the same species,
were published in the same work on the same page. As first reviser to consider these
names and recognize their synonymy, I exercised my rights in selecting Esox Houttuyni
as the valid name. This was not only for chauvinistic reasons (Collette & Berry, 1965:
390), but mainly for the very good reason that, while Houttuyn’s description and figure,
on which Esox Houttuyni was based, are good and can readily be identified as referring
to this species, the description on which Esox marinus was based does not make sense
at all, and was regarded as identifiable only because of its type-locality, New York, as
there is apparently only one common species that far north. In accepting Esox marinus
as applicable I was only consistent as I had accepted Esox Imperialis also partly on
geographical evidence, though the additional evidence supporting the last-mentioned
name is far better than that for Esox marinus. As, however, a choice could be made,
naturally I selected the name based on the best description, and not open to the chance
of different interpretation in future.

It is true, as Collette & Berry pointed out, that the names Strongylura marina and
Tylosurus marinus, derived from Esox marinus Walbaum have been much used in
literature, but it was by no means the only name applied to the species. In the Americas,
the name timucu has been used almost or quite as often*, and also in use are the
names almeida, truncata, and galeata. In Africa the name most often used for the
species is Belone senegalensis Valenciennes, 1846.

Collette & Berry (1965: 390) have quoted as “ ... an even more remarkable
statement ” my opinion (Mees, 1962: 36) that ‘“‘... many names in the genus Belone
have so often been misused that it is perhaps an advantage to have a set of nomencla-
torially clean names available to replace them ”’. Contrary to Collette & Berry I do not
see why this statement is so remarkable. Once a name has been used in literature for
several different species, either because of repeated misidentification, or because of
disagreement about the identity of the species originally described, it loses its primary
use as a short indication of which species an author is referring to. I believe there-
fore that in a group as the Belonidae, which was in a chaos, it is fortunate that I have
found some old names, like Belone houttuyni (Walbaum) and Belone marisrubri (Bloch
& Schneider), which on the one hand have clear priority, and on the other hand are not
loaded down with misapplications and misinterpretations.

* In this connection it is interesting to point out that though Berry & Rivas (1962) call the
species Strongylura marina in their text, in the abstract in bold printing which precedes their
article they call it Strongylura timucu. Surely nothing but a slip, but a highly significant one,
which shows that the name fimucu was as familiar to them and as much in their mind as the
name marina! I regard Esox timucu Walbaum, based on Marcgrav, as impossible to identify
(Mees, 1962: 73-74).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153

Subsequent to the publication of my revision, the name Be/one houttuyni (Walbaum)
has been used by Boeseman (1963), Cadenat & Marchal (1963), Cadenat & Roux
(1964), and Daget & IItis (1965).

In conclusion I would counter Collette & Berry’s proposal by proposing that the
International Commission:

(1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of priority but not for

those of homonymy the following specific names:
(a) acus Lacépéde, 1803, as published in the combination Sphyraena acus;
(5) argalus Lesueur, 1821, as published in the combination Belona argalus;
(2) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, as published in the combination Esox Hout-
tuyni;
(5) imperialis Rafinesque, 1810, as published in the combination Esox
Imperialis;
(c) marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination
Esox belone Var. Maris rubri;
(3) place the following names on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) acus Lacépéde, 1803, as suppressed under (1) (a);
(6) argalus Lesueur, 1821, as suppressed under (1) (6).

LITERATURE CITED

ALBUQUERQUE, R. M. 1956. Peixes de Portugal e elhas adjacentes chaves para a
sua determinacao. Portug. Acta Biol. (B)5 : 1-1164.

Berry, F. H. & Rivas, L.R. 1962. Data on six species of needlefishes (Belonidae)
from the Western Atlantic. Copeia: 152-160.

BoESEMAN, M. 1963. An annotated list of fishes from the Niger Delta. Zool. Verh.
61, 48 pp.

BONAPARTE, C. L. 1849. Catalogo Metodico dei Pesci Europei. Napoli, 97 pp.

. CADENAT, J. & MARCHAL, E. 1963. Résultats des campagnes océanographiques de
la Reine-Pokou aux iles Sainte-Héléne et Ascension. Poissons. Bull. Inst.
Fr. d’ Afr. Noire 25 (A): 1235-1315, pls. 1-47.

CADENAT, J. & Roux, CH. 1964. Poissons téléostéens. Resultats Scientifiques des
Campagnes de la “* Calypso ’’ 6 : 81-102.

Carus, J. V. 1889-1893. Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae Il. Stuttgart, ix +
854 pp.

Cirino, A. 1653. ... de Venatione et Natura Animalium libri quinque ..., I.
Panormi, apud J. Bisagni.

CoLteTTeE, B. B. & Berry, F.H. 1965. Recent studies on the needlefishes (Beloni-
dae): an evaluation. Copeia: 386-392.

—— 1966. Proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the family Belonidae
(Pisces). Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 22 : 325-329.

CuvigR, G. & VALENCIENNES, A. 1846. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons XVII.
Paris (4° ed.), xviii + 375 pp.

Dacet, J. & ILtis, A. 1965. Poissons de Céte d’Ivoire (eaux douces et saumatres).
Mem. Inst. Fr. d’ Afr. Noire 74, 385 pp.

D’Ancona, U. 1931. Uovo, larve e stadi giovanili di Teleostei. Synentognathi.
Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli, Monogr. 38: 157-176.

Fow er, H. W. 1919. Notes on tropical American fishes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.
Philad. 71 : 128-155.

— 1922. A list of Hawaiian fishes. Copeia, no. 112: 82-84.

JORDAN, D. S. & Forpice, M. W. 1887. A review of the American species of
Belonidae. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9 : 339-361.

peer G. G. 1958. A complete guide to the fishes of Malta. Malta, 74 pp.,

pls.
Mets, G. F. 1962. A preliminary revision of the Belonidae. Zool. Verh. 54, 96 pp.
— 1964. Further revisional notes on the Belonidae. Zool. Meded. 39 : 311-326.

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

METZELAAR, J. 1919. Over Tropisch Atlantische Visschen. Amsterdam, 314 pp.

Monaitore, A. 1743. Della Sicilia ricercata nella cose pitt memorabili (Coll
aggiunti di due storiche relazioni, una de’ terremoti, l’altra delle pestilenze di
Sicilia), I.

Moreau, E. 1881. Histoire naturelle des Poissons de la France Ill. Paris, 697 pp.

Munro, I. S. R. 1958. The fishes of the New Guinea region. Papua and New
Guinea Agric. J. 10 : 97-369.

RAFINESQUE-SCHMALTZ, C. S. 1810. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie
di animali e piante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi. Palermo,
1809-1810, 105 pp.

Rey, L. L. 1947. Peces ganoideos y fit6stomos. Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Madrid
11 : iii-xv + 1-839.

Rosins, C. R. 1965. Comments on application to validate Xiphias platypterus
Shaw & Nodder, 1792, for the Indian Ocean sailfish. Bull. Zool. Nomencl.
22 : 150-151.

Smitu, J. L. B. 1964. The statute of limitation—stability or chaos? Dept. Ichth.
Rhodes Univ. Grahamstown, Occas. Pap. 1 : 16 pp.

Svetovipov, A. N. 1955. [Contribution to the systematics of Belone bellone (L.)]
(in Russian). Tray. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sci. USSR 18 : 343-345.

TORTONESE, E. 1963. Belone imperialis (Raf.) (Pisces) nel Mediterraneo. Doriana
3 (129) : 1-6

— 1964. Elenco riveduto dei Leptocardi, Ciclostomi, Pesci cartilaginei e ossei
del Mare Mediterraneo. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova 74 : 156-185.

ToRTONESE, E. & Trotti, L. 1949. Catalogo dei pisci del mar Ligure. Atti Accad.
Ligure Sci. Lett. 6 : 1-118.

VINCIGUERRA, D. 1885. Appunti ittiologici sulle collezioni del Museo Civico di
Genova. VII. Sopra alcuni pesci nuovi pal Golfo di Genova. Ann. Mus.
Civ. Genova 22 : 446-475.

WEBER, M. & DE BEAUFORT, L. F. 1922. The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archi-
pelago IV. Leiden, xiii + 410 pp.

Whitey, G. P. 1964. Presidential address. A survey of Australian ichthyology.
Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 89 : 11-127.

WooDLAND, D. J. & SLACK-SMITH, R. J. 1963. Fishes of Heron Island, Capricorn
Group, Great Barrier Reef. Univ. Qld. Pap. Zool. 2 : 15-69.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155

COSMOPTERIX HUBNER, 1825 (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.A(S.) 1742

By Ronald W. Hodges (Entomology Research Division, Agric. Res. Serv.,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

The purpose of the present application is to insure stability of the name
Cosmopterix in the sense used by taxonomists for the past 100 years and at the
same time to continue the use of the familial name Cosmopterigidae.

2. Cosmopterix, the type-genus of Cosmopterigidae Heinemann and Wocke
(1876 : 520), was proposed by Hiibner (1825) for seven species, including Tinea
zieglerella Hiibner and Tinea angustipennella Hiibner, but he did not designate a
type-species.

3. Subsequently, two type-species designations have been made. The
first was made by Desmarest (1857 : 299) who selected Tinea angustipennella as
type-species; the second was made by Walsingham (1909 : 4) who selected
Tinea zieglerella as type-species. (A third, supposed, type-species designation
was made by Zeller (1839 : 210); however, no name was listed as type, and two
of the names originally included by Hiibner in Cosmopterix were given. Thus,
no type-species was actually selected. Within the same paper Zeller made the
incorrect emendation Cosmopteryx.)

4. The species angustipennella and zieglerella are neither congeneric nor
even members of the same family; angustipennella (a junior synonym of Phalaena
Tinea pedella Linnaeus) is a species of Stathmopoda Herrich-Schaffer, 1853, in the
Heliodinidae Heinemann and Wocke (1876 : 518); zieglerella is a species of
Cosmopterix in the Cosmopterigidae. Subsequent to Herrich-Schaffer’s (1853 :
54, pl. 9, f. 22) definition of Stathmopoda (monobasic), authors, with the excep-
tion of Desmarest, have followed him in recognizing two genera, Stathmopoda
and Cosmopterix.

5. Cosmopterix, as defined by Desmarest (this designation had been over-
looked until pointed out by me (1961 : 11)), is a heliodinid genus and a senior
synonym of Stathmopoda (containing more than 220 species). The family name
Heliodinidae has page priority over Cosmopterigidae, so the latter would
become a junior synonym of Heliodinidae. A junior synonym of Cosmo-
pterigidae, Diplosaridae Meyrick (1916 : 339) would be used for the genera
currently in Cosmopterigidae. And, a new generic name would have to be
proposed for the species in Cosmopterix (auct.) (a genus with more than 140
species).

6. Recognition of Tinea zieglerella as the type-species of Cosmopterix would
promote stability of nomenclature by obviating the drastic changes outlined in
the preceding paragraph. Therefore, I ask that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the
genus Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825, made prior to the ruling now

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

requested and, having done so, designate Tinea zieglerella Hiibner,
1796, as type-species of that genus;

(2) place Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825, type-species, by designation under the
plenary powers in (1) above, Tinea zieglerella Hiibner, 1796, on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name
zieglerella Hiibner, 1796, as published in the binomen Tinea zieglerella
(type-species of Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825);

(4) place the name COSMOPTERIGIDAE (correction of COSMOPTERYGIDAE)
Heinemann and Wocke, 1876 (type-species Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825)
on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

LITERATURE CITED

DesMAREST, E. 1857. Jn Chenu, J.C. Encyclopédie d’Histoire Naturelle. Papillons
Nocturnes

DE GREY, T., LORD WALSINGHAM. 1909-1915. Jn Godman and Salvin, Biologia
Centrali-Americana, Vol. 42 (Lepidoptera; Heterocera, Vol. 4)

HEINEMANN, H. v. and WockeE, M. F. 1876. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und
der Schweiz, Vol. 2, pt. 2. Schwetschke und Sohn, Braunschweig.

HERRICH-SCHAFFER, G. A. W. 1853-1855. Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetter-
linge von Europa, Vol. 5 (text)

Hopces,R. W. 1962. Revision of the Cosmopterigidae of America north of Mexico,
with a definition of the Momphidae and Walshiidae (Lepidoptera: Gele-
chioidea). Ent. Americana, 42 : 1-171

HUtsner, J. 1816-1825. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. Author, Augs-
burg. 431 pp.

Meyrick, E. 1916. Exotic Microlepidoptera, Vol. 1, pt. 11 : 321-352

ZELLER, P. C. 1839. Versuch einer naturgemassen Eintheilung der Schaben, Tinea.
Isis von Oken, 3 : 167—220

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 157

CHROMIS AUREUS STEINDACHNER, 1864 (PISCES, CICHLIDAE):
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES.
Z.N.(S.) 1743

By E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Chromis aureus Steindachner, 1864 was described from an unstated number
of specimens from West Africa. One specimen in the Vienna Museum (No.
32874) is registered as “ typus ” of this species and agrees with the description,
figure and size given by Steindachner. In 1870 Steindachner himself placed the
name in the synonymy of “ Chromis niloticus” (= Tilapia nilotica), along with
other names some of which have subsequently been recognized as valid. Later
it was placed by Pellegrin (1903) and Boulenger (1915) in the synonymy of
another species of Tilapia.

The species which this type specimen represents was not recognized until
1951, when Steinitz described it as a subspecies of T. nilotica from a small
isolated population in a rather specialized habitat in the Jordan Valley, naming
it T. n. exul.

In 1954 it was described again as T. monodi Daget, from the Middle Niger.
Daget later (e.g. 1961) found it more widely distributed in West Africa. Both
these synonyms are subjective.

Although the name Chromis aureus has never been literally oblitum, the
definition of nomen oblitum in Art. 23b would technically cover it, because it was
not used as a senior synonym since its proposal in 1864, until now, when I
propose so to use it (Trewavas, 1966, and in a monograph of the genus Tilapia
in preparation). All the time the description and figure and at least one type-
specimen in Vienna have been available.

I therefore ask the Commission to place the following on the Official List
of Specific names in Zoology:

aureus Steindachner, 1864, as published in the binomen Chromis aureus with

the type-locality narrowed from the original datum “West Afrika ” to
“River Senegal ’’, where the species which it is believed to represent is
known to occur.

REFERENCES

BouLENGER, G. A. 1915. Cat. Afr. freshw. Fishes vol. 2

DacetT, J. 1954. Les poissons du Niger Supérieur. Mem. Inst. frang. Afr. Noire
No. 36 : 5-391

— 1961. Contribution 4 la connaissance de la faune du Fleuve Sénégal.
Poissons du Baoulé et du Bakoy. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (2) 32 : 506-512

PELLEGRIN, J. 1903. Contribution a l’étude anatomique, biologique et taxonomique
¥s poissons de la famille des cichlidés. Mém. Soc. zool. Fr. 16 : 41-401,
pls. iv—vii

STEINDACHNER, F. 1864. Ichthyologische Mittheilungen (VII). Verh. zool.-bot.
Ges. Wien 14 : 223-232, pls. vii and viii. (p. 229, pl. viii, fig. 5)

STemInitz, H. 1951. A new subspecies of Tilapia nilotica (L.) from Palestine. Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 4 : 513-518

TREWAVAS, E. 1966 (in the press). Tilapia aurea (Steindachner) and the status of
Tilapia nilotica exul, T. monodi and T. lemassoni (Pisces, Cichlidae)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OTOLITHUS AUREUS RICHARDSON, 1846 (PISCES, SCIAENIDAE):
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES.
Z.N.(S.) 1744

By E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Otolithus aureus Richardson, 1846, was described from a specimen from
Canton, now lost, and an unpublished illustration in the British Museum with
the reference number “Icon. Reeves 234”. Since the type was lost even in
1860, the date of the publication of vol. 2 of Giinther’s “‘ Catalogue of Fishes ”’,
Giinther recorded the name among his species dubiae of Otolithus. At that time
there was no specimen in the British Museum to match “ Icon. Reeves 234 ”’,
but specimens have since been received although they were only recently
recognized as this species (Trewavas & Yazdani, 1966). Meanwhile the species
has been redescribed under three names,

Sciaena ophiceps Alcock, 1889 (Bay of Bengal)

Johnius birtwistlei Fowler, 1933 (Singapore)

Pseudosciaena acuta Tang, 1937 (Kwantung).

These are, of course, all subjective synonyms and the evidence for their
synonymy is given by Trewavas & Yazdani (l.c.)

The name O. aureus has not been used, to my knowledge, since its listing by
Giinther as a species dubia, except by Chu, Lo & Wu (1913), who regard it as a
junior synonym of Ofolithus ruber Schneider, 1801 (wrongly, according to
evidence given by Trewavas and Yazdani). Although it was properly a nomen
dubium it would come within the definition of nomen oblitum in Art. 23(b).
Following the taxonomic procedure accepted before 1961, Trewavas & Yazdani
have established it by publishing a photograph of “‘ icon. Reeves 234” and
selecting a neotype from Hong Kong waters, very near the type locality. They
have made O. aureus type species of a new genus. They have also given full
reasons for the synonymy recorded above, with photographs of two of the
syntypes of Sciaena ophiceps.

Strict adherence to Art. 23(b) would require the beheading of this synonymy
by the removal of O. aureus and perhaps also of S. ophiceps, unless the mention
of this name by Fowler in 1933 to decide (wrongly as we maintain) that it was
distinct from J. birtwistlei is sufficient to drag it within the fifty-year limit.

No useful purpose could be served by such action. The species has received
little attention. The name acuta has been used by Chinese authors only three
times to my knowledge, and they would be less disturbed by replacing it by
aureus than by birtwistlei, used only once (or ophiceps if this is available).

O. aureus is one of the names of the vast Indo-Pacific fauna which, as J. L. B.
Smith (1964) points out, cannot be expected to be stabilized until revisions
covering the whole area are carried out. Indeed all of Prof. Smith’s arguments
against Art. 23(b) apply in force to this case, not least the fact that a proposed
restriction of 23(b) allegedly under consideration would, if adopted at a future
Congress, immediately re-establish the name.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159

I therefore request the Commission, if necessary by the use of its plenary

powers, to place the following on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:

aureus Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Ofolithus aureus, type
species of Chrysochir Trewavas & Yazdani, 1966 (Pisces, Sciaenidae).

REFERENCES

Atcock, A. 1889. J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 18 (2) : 296-305 (p. 300)

Cuu, Y. T., Lo, Y. L., and Wu, H. L. 1963. A study of the classification of the
sciaenoid fishes of China... pp. i-ii, 1-100, pls. i-xl. Shanghai Fisheries
Institute

Fow ter, H.W. 1933. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 100 (12) : 1-465 (p. 403)

RICHARDSON, J. 1846. Report on the ichthyology of China and Japan. Rep. 15th
Meeting Br. Ass. Adv. Sc. (London) : 187-320 (p. 224)

TANG, D. S. 1937. Amoy mar. biol. Bull. 2 (2) : 47-88 (p. 62, fig. 5) (not seen,
quoted from Lin)

TREWAVAS, E., and YAZDANI, G. M. 1966. Chrysochir, a new genus for the sciaenid
fish Otolithus aureus Richardson. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 8 : 249-255, pl. vi.

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

MACROCHOETA MACQUART, 1851 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1745

By A. C. Pont (British Museum (Natural History), London)

This application concerns the threat to stability in the nomenclature of the
Muscidae caused by the discovery that Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851, is a senior
subjective synonym of Pygophora Schiner, 1868.

2. Macquart 1851 (Mém. Soc. Sci. Agric. Lille 1850 : 242) described
Macrochoeta rufipes, as a new genus and a new species.

3. Bigot 1882 (Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) 2:11 and 20) alluded to the
genus and, without having seen it, included it in a key to Muscid genera.

4. Stein 1919 (Arch. Naturgesch. 83 A 1 [1917] : 86), in the preamble to
his catalogue of world Muscidae, stated that he was unable to recognize Macro-
chaeta (sic) and was therefore omitting it from his list.

5. Tillyard 1926 (The Insects of Australia and New Zealand: 374) referred
to Macrochaeta (sic) as a small genus peculiar to Australia.

6. Albuquerque 1949 (Revista bras. Biol. 9 : 440) was the first student since
Macquart to examine the holotype, and he stated that Macrochaeta (sic) was
very similar to Pygophora Schiner.

7. Pont (in press) has studied the holotype of Macrochoeta rufipes and
concluded that it is identical with the species Pygophora abnorma Paramonov,
1961. He established this specific synonymy, and stated the desirability of
suppressing Macrochoeta by use of the plenary powers.

8. Grube 1850 (Arch. Naturgesch. 16 (1) : 312) erected the genus Macro-
chaeta for a group of polychaete worms.

9. Macrochaeta Grube and Macrochoeta Macquart are not homonyms,
despite identity of meaning. As it fulfils the provisions of Article 32 of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1961, Macrochoeta is the correct
spelling of this name, although dipterists would usually spell this suffix
**-chaeta”’. Macrochaeta Macquart, of authors, is an incorrect subsequent
spelling and does not enter into homonymy under Article 54(4) of the Code.

10. Schiner 1868 (Nov. Reise, Diptera : 295) described Pygophora apicalis,
as a new genus and a new species.

11. Every student dealing with this group of flies has used Schiner’s name,
and there has until now never been any doubt concerning its validity. Van der
Wulp, Stein, Malloch, Séguy, Van Emden, Hennig, Paramonov, Crosskey and
Snyder have used the name Pygophora in a total of at least 39 papers.

12. Crosskey 1962 (Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 29 (6) : 393-551) has revised the
genus which now includes 53 species recognized as valid and 11 names placed in
synonymy. Several new species await description.

13. The transfer of these species to the unrecognized generic name Macro-
choeta is against the interest of nomenclatural stability and the name Pygophora
should continue to be available for this generic concept. The interests of
stability and uniformity in nomenclature will best be served if Macrochoeta is
suppressed, and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
therefore asked:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Macrochoeta
Macquart, 1851, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy, in the interests of stability and uni-
formity of nomenclature in the Muscidae:

(2) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

Pygophora Schiner, 1868 (gender : feminine), type-species, by
monotypy, Pygophora apicalis Schiner, 1868;

(3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:
apicalis Schiner, 1868, as published in the binomen Pygophora apicalis
(type-species of Pygophora Schiner, 1868);

(4) to place the following generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Names in Zoology:

Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above).

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS, 1878 (REPTILIA): PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1746

By Carl Gans (State University of New York, Buffalo, U.S.A.)

In 1878, W. C. H. Peters (Monats. Ber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1878 : 779)
described the new species Amphisbaena mildei on the basis of a single specimen
from “‘ Pérto Alegre’. The holotype was once deposited as No. 6255 in the
Zoologische Museum der Universitat, Berlin. Dr. Heinz Wermuth, former
curator of this collection, has informed me that the specimen was lost when the
materials were moved from storage after World War II. No other specimens
have been reported.

2. The name was retained by G. A. Boulenger in his 1885 Catalogue of the
Lizards in the British Museum Volume 2, but others placed it into the synonymy
of Amphisbaena darwini D.B. from which Peters separated it by the arrangement
of the head scales.

3. Revisionary work now shows that Amphisbaena darwini auct. is a com-
plex of at least 4 species, 3 of which occur in the immediate vicinity of Pérto
Alegre, R.G.S., Brazil. It is possible to assign the name mildei to one of these
(Amphisbaena darwini Duméril and Bibron, 1839, Erpétologie Générale ou
Histoire Naturelle des Reptiles 5 : 490) with some degree of certainty, although
there is a suspicion that the specimen may have been abnormal since the original
description refers to asymmetries (p. 780). Unfortunately, the description lacks
mention of the very obvious caudal tuberculation which is uniformly present in
specimens of A. darwini of this size collected at Pérto Alegre, and also of the
number of mid body segments.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that darwini has several races and
at least 3 recognizable populations of this species occur within 50 miles of the
capital city of Pérto Alegre. Two of these lack caudal tuberculation so that the
information given by Peters does not permit unequivocal assignment of the
name to any of the forms in this region.

4. The name in question has been cited only 5 times in the present century,
twice in a list without any more comments except that the form is known from
the type specimen only (Goeldi, 1902; Burt & Burt 1933) and 3 times in syno-
nymy, also without comment, by do Amaral who placed a host of series of forms
into synonymy as aberrations.

5. There are available names for each of the other populations concerned,
but all except A. darwini date after 1878. The one for the population from
which the type of Amphisbaena mildei was most probably sampled is Amphisbaena
trachura Cope, 1885 (Proc. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences : 189),
of which the type specimen is still available and leaves no doubt of its assignment.
This name was most recently used by Vanzolini (1951 thesis; 1953 Copeia : 124).

6. The problem could be solved by designating a neotype to replace the
type lost from the Zoological Museum der Universitat, Berlin, but as the name
mildei has not been used in the 50 years prior to 1961 (publication date of the
Code) in primary zoological nomenclature except in synonymy (see paragraph

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163

4 above), it is virtually a nomen oblitum and its suppression as such would
create less confusion than the probable replacement of Amphisbaena trachura
Cope by the practically unknown name A. mildei Peters. Such action by the
Commission would certainly serve the principle of stability by stopping specula-
tion on this issue, and by preventing resurrection of this name and disturbance
of the literature should a specimen having some claim to typical status be found
in the future. This is the action which has been recommended in a paper on
this group accepted for publication in the Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History.

7. Unfortunately the Secretary of the Commission informs me that the
application of Article 23(b) is now out of the question until after the next
Congress of Zoology since this Article has been suspended by a majority vote
of the Commission until that time. I do not feel that such a long delay is in the
interest of stability.

8. In consequence the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature is requested:

(a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Amphisbaena mildei Peters,
1878 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not of the Law of
Homonymy;

(b) to place the name trachura Cope, 1885, as published in the binomen
Amphisbaena trachura, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;

(c) to place mildei Peters, 1878, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena
mildei, as suppressed in (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

STENOPODINAE IN INSECTA AND STENOPODIDAE IN CRUSTACEA:
PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO REMOVE THE
HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.) 1747

By W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London)

The family-group name STENOPODINAE was established by Stal in 1859
(Berlin ent. Zeit. 3 : 328) in the insect order Hemiptera (family REDUVIIDAE)
under the group name STENOPODIDA. It was based on the genus Stenopoda
Laporte, 1833 (Essai Class. syst. Hemipt., Mag. Zool. 2, Suppl.: 26). In 1879,
Huxley established the family-group name STENOPODIDAE (correction of STENO-
PIDAE, Proc. zool. Soc. London 1878 : 783) in the Crustacea, based on the genus
Stenopus Latreille, 1819 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 30 : 71).

2. The insect group name therefore has priority over the Crustacean name,
but in Opinion 522 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 211, 1958) the
family-group name STENOPODIDAE Huxley [1879], was placed on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and the genus Stenopus Latreille, 1819,
on the Official List of Generic Names on Zoology.

3. Inorder to resolve the homonymy it is necessary, therefore, to change the
name of the insect family-group. It is suggested that the least confusion would
result if the name STENOPODINAE were changed to STENOPODAINAE. This would
have to be done under the plenary powers.

4. The International Commission is therefore requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to emend the family-group name STENOPODINAE
Stal, 1859 (correction of STENOPODIDA) (Hemiptera, REDUVIIDAE) to
STENOPODAINAE;

(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the
family-group name STENOPODAINAE (emend. under the plenary powers
of STENOPODIDA) Stal, 1859 (type-genus Stenopoda Laporte, 1833);

(3) to place the family-group name STENOPODINAE (correction of STENO-
PODIDA) Stal, 1859 (type-genus Stenopoda Laporte, 1833) on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology;

(4) to place the generic name Stenopoda Laporte, 1833 (gender : feminine),
type-species, by montypy, Stenopoda cinerea Laporte, 1833, on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(5) to place the specific name cinerea Laporte, 1833, as published in the
binomen Stenopoda cinerea (type-species of Stenopoda Laporte, 1833)
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165

SCOPTES HUBNER [1819] v. CAPYS HEWITSON 1864 (LEPIDOPTERA,
LYCAENIDAE), A CASE OF A FORGOTTEN NAME. Z.N.(S.) 1748

By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Hiibner [1819], in his well known Verzeichnis bekannter Schmetterlinge
introduced the generic name Scoptes (: 111) for a heterogeneous group of
three species which he called Scoptes alpheus Cram. 182. E.F.; S. protumnus
Linn. Syst. Pap. 258; and S. crotopus Cram. 390. G.H. In the same work
Hiibner also placed protumnus (under its synonym petalus Cram. 243. C.D.) in
his new genus Thestor (l.c. : 73) and crotopus in his new genus Euselasia (l.c. :
24).

2. In 1864 Hewitson (J//. Diurn. Lep. : 58) introduced the generic name
Capys and included in it one species only, namely Papilio alpheus Cramer, which
automatically became its type-species by monotypy.

3. Five years later Butler (1869, Cat. Diurn. Lep. Fabricius Brit. Mus. : 176)
in a footnote to Scoptes Hiibner, adds “ Capys of Hewitson”’. Butler in this
work refers only one species, namely alpheus Cramer, to Scoptes, but makes no
statement at all as to whether or not he regarded alpheus as the type-species of
Scoptes. His action cannot be construed as fixing alpheus as the type-species
of Scoptes.

4. Scudder in 1775 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. Boston 10 : 267) in his
Sketch of the Generic Names of the Butterflies, recited these facts, but did not
select a type-species for Scoptes, considering, for reasons that no longer hold
good, that this was unnecessary.

5. Ihave been unable to discover any subsequent action by any author that
could possibly be accepted as fixing the type-species of Scoptes. Indeed I have
only traced two other quotations of the name in the whole of the subsequent
literature. The first is by Kirby (1871, Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lep. : 337) who quotes
it as a synonym of Axiocerses Hiibner ({1819], lc. : 72); the second by
Aurivillius (1898, Rhop. Aeth. : 335, 337) who treats it as a partial synonym of
both Capys Hewitson and Leptomyrina Butler 1898, to both of which it is con-
siderably senior.

6. The question at issue therefore is to decide which of the three nominal
species originally included in Scoptes by Hiibner should be selected as its type-
species, bearing in mind the desirability of causing the least possible disturbance
to other generic names involved.

If we select crotopus, then Scoptes becomes a subjective synonym of Euse-
lasia, one of the better known genera of Riodinidae, and a first reviser choice
becomes necessary as between these two names, since according to Hemming
(1937, Hiibner 2 : 198, 253) both these Hiibnerian names were published
“early in 1819 ”; and in all probability a certain amount of taxonomic research
would also be necessary.

If we select protumnus, then Scoptes becomes an objective synonym of
Thestor, which has protumnus as its type-species and is a very well-known

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Lycaenid generic name, already the subject of considerable misuse. Here
again, and for precisely the same reason, a first reviser choice would be neces-
sary.

If alpheus is selected, then Scoptes becomes an objective senior synonym of
Capys Hewitson, which also has alpheus as its type-species and is the current
name, and has been for 100 years, for a well known genus of South African
Lycaenidae.

7. Whichever of these courses is adopted there will be a risk of disturbance of
long accepted practice (first and second choices), or an actual disturbance (third
choice). As the consequences of adopting the third choice can be easily
avoided by the Commission acting either under its plenary powers, or under
Article 23(b) if still in force, whereas this does not apply in the other two cases,
I here and now select Papilio alpheus Cramer [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (16) : 131,
pl. 183, figs. E.F. to be the type-species of Scoptes Hiibner [1819] Verz.
bekannt. Schmett.: 111, and at the same time invite the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress this name for
purposes of Priority, but not Homonymy and to place it on the Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167

CORNUFER UNICOLOR TSCHUDI 1838 (AMPHIBIA, SALIENTIA):
REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
Z.N.(S.) 1749

By Richard G. Zweifel (The American Museum of Natural History,
New York, U.S.A.)

In 1838, Tschudi (Classification der Batrachier . .. Neuchatel, p. 28 a pre-
print; also published in Mem. Soc. Neuchdtel, 2, 1839 [1840]) described the
new genus and species Cornufer unicolor. He based the description on two
specimens said to be from New Guinea. Subsequently, the name Cornufer
came to be used for ranid frogs found on islands from Fiji through the Solomon
Islands and New Guinea to the Philippine Islands. The most recently published ©
list (Brown, 1965, Breviora 218) includes 27 species of Cornufer.

There are only two direct references to the type specimens of Cornufer
unicolor in the literature following the original description: Duméril and
Bibron (1841, Erpétologie Genérale, 8 : 616-618) redescribed the syntype
located in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; van Kampen
(1923, Amphibia of the Indo- Australian archipelago: 105) identified the syntype in
the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, as a microhylid frog,
Sphenophryne cornuta. A specimen referred by Duméril (1853, Ann. Sci. nat.,
Zool. (3) 19 : 174) to C. unicolor evidently is the only other individual of this
species reported in the literature.

Because no additional specimens were discovered in more than 100 years
and because the published descriptions were inadequate to permit me to resolve
the question of the identity of the syntype in the Museum in Paris, I asked Dr.
Jean Guibé if the specimen might still be found in the Museum. Dr. Guibé
found the long lost specimen, which bears number 747, and generously sent it
for my examination.

Elsewhere (Copeia, in press) I present the results of a detailed investigation
of the identity of the Paris syntype and designate it lectotype of Cornufer
unicolor. Designation of the Paris specimen as lectotype is justifiable on two
grounds: van Kampen (loc. cit.) did this in spirit if not in fact when he identified
the syntype in the Leiden Museum as a specimen of another species although he
continued to recognize Cornufer unicolor as valid; the original description was
based almost entirely on the specimen in the Paris Museum.

The lectotype is not a ranid frog as has been supposed, but possesses the
skeletal characteristics of the leptodactylid genus Eleutherodactylus: vomerine
and maxillary teeth present; terminal phalanges T-shaped; pectoral girdle
arciferal; sternum without a bony style; sacral diapophyses cylindrical; free
coccyx articulating by paired condyles. My examination of the specimen
verified the descriptions of external features given by Tschudi (/oc. cit.) and
Duméril and Bibron (oc. cit.) and permitted evaluation of other characters as
well. I regard the lectotype as an individual of the species described by Barbour
(1914, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool., 44 : 252) as Leptodactylus inoptatus, type
locality Diquini, Haiti, and known at the present time as Eleutherodactylus
inoptatus.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Cornufer Tschudi, 1838, antedates Eleutherodactylus Duméril and Bibron,
1841 (op. cit.: 620; see Myers, 1962, Copeia: 195-202 for a discussion of the
generic name Eleutherodactylus), and according to the Law of Priority the
former should replace the latter. Such strict application of the Law could create
considerable confusion. Not only does the genus Eleutherodactylus include more
than two hundred species, with all that implies for the literature of systematics
and related fields, but species of this genus also have been used in experimental
studies in such fields as embryology and genetics. Use of the name Cornufer
for the ranid frogs has not achieved stability, and Platymantis, the name that is
available to replace Cornufer, has been used widely and recently for a large
proportion of the species placed in Cornufer by Brown (op. cit.). Therefore, it
seems in the best interest of stability of nomenclature to suppress the name
Cornufer and validate the use of Eleutherodactylus.

I feel that the specific name wnicolor should be suppressed along with
Cornufer, although it is demonstrably a senior synonym of inoptatus. The name
inoptatus has been in use for more than 50 years, and replacing it with unicolor
would serve no useful purpose. Such replacement would carry the seed of
future confusion, for there is a valid species Eleutherodactylus unicolor Stejneger
(1904, Rept. U.S. nat. Mus., 1902: 597) of Puerto Rico for which a replacement
name would have to be supplied.

Accordingly, I request the International Commission of Zoological Nomen-
clature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the pur-
poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo-
nymy:

(a) the generic name Cornufer Tschudi, 1838;
(b) the specific name unicolor Tschudi, 1838, as published in the
binomen Cornufer unicolor ;

(2) to place the generic name Eleutherodactylus Duméril and Bibron, 1841
(gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Hylodes martini-
censis Tschudi, 1838, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:

(a) martinicensis Tschudi, 1838, as published in the binomen Hylodes
martinicensis (type-species of Eleutherodactylus Dumeéril and
Bibron, 1841);

(b) inoptatus Barbour, 1914, as published in the binomen Leptodactylus
inoptatus;

(4) to place the generic name suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) (a) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology;

(5) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b)
above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169

RANA MACULATA DAUDIN, 1801 (AMPHIBIA) : PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION UNDER PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1750

By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.);

John D. Lynch (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas, U.S.A.),

and Robert W. Reese (Department of Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado, U.S.A.)

In 1801 Daudin described, in Sonnini and Latreille’s great Natural History
of Reptiles, a Rana maculata (vol. 2, pp. 161-162) which has apparently not been
cited since 1841 and has never been authoritatively allocated to the synonymy
of any recognized species. It antedates Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877, one of the
earliest names applied to a well-recognized species of frog of Central America
and Mexico. Rana maculata Daudin, although never allocated in the past, also
is the earliest name applied to any species of frog of Puerto Rico and is apparent-
ly referable to the species now known as Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger,
1904. As a senior synonym of one well-recognized species, and a senior homo-
nym of another, Rana maculata Daudin is a hazard to nomenclatural stability.
We hereby request its suppression in order to preserve the two names it ante-
dates.

2. The authorship and date of publication of Sonnini and Latreille’s four-
volume work has been thoroughly explored by Harper (1940). It is sufficient
here to say that convincing evidence exists for fixation of the date of publication
as 1801, the authorship of the work as a whole as Sonnini and Latreille, and the
authorship of the frog description as Daudin in Sonnini and Latreille. Redes-
criptions appear in two of Daudin’s works (1802: 37-38, pl. 17, fig. 2; and
1803: 111-112). Tschudi (1839: 38, 78) included the name in the synonymy of
Cystignathus (= Leptodactylus) ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758), a species still
recognized by that name, but Dumeéril and Bibron (1841: 397, 402) objected,
stating that it belongs to some genus other than Rana. So far as we are aware
Daudin’s name has not been mentioned since.

3. That Daudin’s name has not been fixed is due largely to the facts that the
specimen on which it was based was lost long ago (Duméril and Bibron apparent-
ly could not find it, and Guibé, 1950, does not list it), and that none of the
anuran synopses (Giinther, 1859; Boulenger, 1882; Nieden, 1923) mention even
the species, much less the specimens on which it was based. It is not of course
mentioned in any of the reviews of Rana.

4. Actually the description of Rana maculata Daudin is the earliest record
of any herpetozoan from Puerto Rico. Stejneger (1904: 556) does point out
that the earliest observations on Puerto Rican herpetology were made by the
members of a French expedition from 1796-1798 under the direction of Captain
Baudin. Unfortunately the synopsis of the collections in Ledru’s account
(1810(2): 210-214) gives no clue to the fate of the herpetological material,

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

although some other parts were specifically mentioned as having been de-
posited in the Paris Museum. Daudin (1802: 38) does clearly state that the
type of Rana maculata was in the Paris museum, and Tschudi (1839: 38) expli-
citly states he saw it there. No one has reported it since then. Stejneger (1904:
556) regarded it worthless to allocate Ledru’s names for 12 species listed for
Puerto Rico, indeed with good reason. Nevertheless it is of interest to note
that Ledru did list two species of amphibians: Rana ocellata Linnaeus and Rana
arborea Linnaeus. It is possible that Tschudi’s reference of Rana maculata Daudin
to Cystignathus ocellatus was influenced by Ledru’s citation of the name, although
Tschudi presumably actually saw the specimen. Ledru’s Rana arborea (= Hyla
arborea) was no doubt based upon one of the spatulate-toed Eleutherodactylus of
the island, probably portoricensis. Daudin mentions no frog from Puerto Rico
other than his Rana maculata.

5. The applicability of Ledru’s names is of minor importance. Daudin’s
Rana maculata, however, must be dealt with. The original description (freely
translated from the original French) follows:

“One can easily recognize this species by the color of the upper part of its
body, which is a red-brown with three spots of a clear green on the head, and
another round one of the same color on each shoulder. Its body has a slender
form and is only an inch in length. The head is large, with a pointed nose and
protruding eyes. It has some spots of pale gray below the eyes, and a very
narrow yellowish line extending from the eyes along the sides of the body, the
under side of which is granular and of a whitish gray marbled with dots and
blackish streaks. All the toes are slender, elongate and completely separated.

“This new species has been reported from the island of Portorico, by
Maugé, a very zealous naturalist who accompanied Captain Baudin on the
recently undertaken voyage to southern seas, and described by Daudin.”

6. In 1802 Daudin gave a very brief Latin diagnosis, located the three green
spots on the head (one between the eyes and one small one on each tympanum),
equated the digits and body form with those of Pelodytes punctatus, stated that
it was “‘ found under damp leaves in the mountains of the island and is in the
galleries of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris.” No significant addition-
al information is added in the 1803 work, although he noted the death of
Maugé on a later voyage to New Guinea with Capt. Baudin, and that he had
amassed a “ considerable collection ” of birds, insects and terrestrial shellfish
in Puerto Rico. No mention is made of herpetological collections. The pro-
portions, size and coloration described and shown in his figure closely match
those of Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904, although the large green
spots shown in the figure and described in his text are obviously artifacts
effected in preservation. The habitat is the same, since Schmidt (1928: 62-64)
found specimens “* under stones or palm leaves on the trail or on damp ground”
on the El Yunque, from 890 ft. to the peak of the mountain, to which it is
“apparently confined’. No other species known from Puerto Rico agrees
satisfactorily with the information available on Rana maculata. We therefore
conclude that Rana maculata Daudin, 1801, is a senior synonym of Eleuthero-
dactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171

7. In 1877 Brocchi described a Rana maculata as new from Totonicapam,
Guatemala. In 1881 he redescribed and figured the species (1881: 13, pl. 3,
fig. 2). Boulenger (1882: 42) recognized the species as valid in his early review
of the genus (as did Giinther, 1900: 201-2) but later (1920: 434) synonymized it
with Rana halecina Daudin, 1803 (= Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782), where Kellogg
left it (1932: 203). Schmidt and Stuart (1941: 239-241) distinguished it from
Rana pipiens but did not allocate it to any well-recognized taxon. Smith
(1959: 212-216) fixed the name with a well-characterized species, but Stuart
(1963: 45) synonymized it with Rana macroglossa Brocchi, 1877, described in
the same work as Rana maculata, on the ground that macroglossa “is fairly
well entrenched in the literature”. Smith (Joc. cit.) had recognized them as
synonymous, but had exercised the choice of first reviser to select Rana maculata,
the better-characterized form, with a precise type-locality, as the senior name.
One of us (Lynch) has, through the courtesy of Dr. Jean Guibé, re-examined the
syntypes (three each) of both nominal species, in the Muséum d’Histoire
Naturelle of Paris. We here designate No. 6321 the lectotype of Rana macro-
glossa (the other specimens, Nos. 6321A-B, becoming lectoparatypes), and
No. 6412A the lectotype of Rana maculata (the other specimens, Nos. 6412,
6412B, becoming lectoparatypes). The lectotype of Rana macroglossa clearly
represents the species Rana pipiens, thus effectively eliminating the name Rana
macroglossa from consideration in the present context. All specimens of Rana
maculata, as well as the two lectoparatypes of Rana macroglossa, represent a
distinct species for which Rana maculata Brocchi is the earliest name available.
Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877, therefore, remains the valid name for a Central
American and Mexican frog, except for its junior homonymy with Rana
maculata Daudin, 1801.

8. It should be noted, although only of passing interest and not significant
nomenclaturally, that Rana maculata Daudin, which we have shown belongs
to another genus and should be cited in the context of present knowledge as
Eleutherodactylus maculatus (Daudin), is a senior secondary homonym of
Hylodes maculatus Agassiz, 1850 (= Pseudacris triseriata maculata), which was
originally proposed in a nominal genus (Hylodes Fitzinger, 1843) now accepted
as a junior synonym of Eleutherodactylus Fitzinger, 1841 (see Stejneger, 1904:
582). The 1961 Code fortunately prevents the necessity of replacement of junior
secondary homonyms that are not in a state of homonymy at the time of
discovery.

9. Inasmuch as the name Rana maculata Daudin, 1801, (1) would, if re-
tained, replace through senior synonymy Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger,
1904, which has remained stable for over 60 years; (2) would, if retained,
require replacement through senior homonymy of Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877,
by the name Rana melanosoma Giinther, 1900, which has never been used since
its original description as the valid name for any taxon; (3) is a nomen oblitum
of over 150 years; and (4) has been considered a nomen dubium for over 150
years, we now request the Commission

(i) To exercise its plenary powers to suppress the specific name maculata as

used in the combination Rana maculata Daudin, 1801, for purposes of
both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; and

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(ii) To place the name maculata, as above, on the Official Index of Invalid

and Rejected Species-Group Names in Zoology.

10. We refrain from asking that Rana maculata Brocchi and Eleuthero-
dactylus richmondi Stejneger be added to the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology because their specific relationship to adjacent taxa remains to be
determined with finality. Their conservation would, by explicit statement of the
introduction to the List of Specific Names, require usage for the species to which
they belong whether they are the earliest available names or not. Premature
conservation therefore would jeopardize nomenclature, should the species, as
ultimately understood, prove to contain an earlier but unconserved name.
Until procedural rules are devised to prevent such occurrences we prefer to
defer conservation wherever possible.

REFERENCES

BOULENGER, GEORGE ALBERT. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata
in the collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, London. xvi,
503 pp., 30 pls.

—— 1920. A monograph of the American frogs of the genus Rana. Proc. Amer.
Acad. Arts. Sci. 55 : 411-480.

Broccul, PAUL. 1877. Sur quelques batraciens Raniformes et Bufoniformes de
Amerique Centrale. Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris (7) 1 : 175-197.

— 1881. Etudes des batriciens de l’ Amerique Centrale. Mission Scientifique du
Mexique et dans l’Amerique Centrale, part 3, sect. 2, livr. 1 : 1-56, pls. 1-5, 9,
10

Daupin, F. M. 1802. Histoire naturelle des rainettes, des grenouilles et des crapauds.
Bertrandet, Paris. 71 pp., 38 pls. (folio edition, here cited; we have not seen
the simultaneously published quarto edition of 108 pp. and 38 pls., but in the
following work he cites p. 57 for Rana maculata in the quarto edition).

— 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des reptiles ... Dufart,
Paris. Vol. 8, 439 pp., 8 pls.

DumeriL, A. M. C., and Brsron, G. 1841. Erpétologie générale au histoire naturelle
complete des reptiles. Roret, Paris. Vol. 8, vi + 792 pp.

Guisk, JEAN. 1950. Catalogue des types d’amphibiens du Muséum National d’ Histoire
Naturelle. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. 71 pp.

GUNTHER, ALBERT C. L. G. 1859. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the
collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, London. xvi, 160 pp.,
12 pls.

— 1900. Biologia centrali-americana. Reptilia and Batrachia. Porter and
Dulau, London. Signatures 26-30, pp. 197-236, pls. 60-68.

Harper, FRANCIS. 1940. Some works of Bartram, Daudin, Latreille, and Sonnini,
and their bearing upon North American herpetological nomenclature. Amer.
Midl. Nat. 23(3) : 692-723, fig. 1.

KELLOGG, REMINGTON. 1932. Mexican tailless amphibians in the United States
National Museum. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 160: i-iv, 1-224, figs. 1-24, pl. 1.

LeDRU, ANDRE-PIERRE. 1810. Voyage aux iles de Ténériffe, la Trinité, Saint-
Thomas, Sainte-Croix et Porto-Ricco ... Bertrand, Paris. 2 vols. Vol. 1:
i-xlviii, 1-315; vol. 2; 1-325, map.

NIEDEN, Fr. 1923. Anura I. Das Tierreich (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin), 46 : i-
xxxii, 1-584, figs. 1-380.

SCHMIDT, KARL PATTERSON. 1928. Amphibians and land reptiles of Porto Rico,
with a list of those reported from the Virgin Islands. Ann. New York Acad.
Sci. 10 : 1-160, figs. 1-52, pls. 1-4, index pp. 513-535.

— and Sruart, L. C. 1941. The herpetological fauna of the Salama Basin,
Baja Verapaz, Guatemala. Zool. Ser. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 24 : 233-247,
figs. 21-22.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

SmiTH, Hopart M. 1959. Herpetozoa from Guatemala, I. Herpetologica 15 : 210-
216.

SONNINI, C. S., and LATREILLE, P. A. 1801. Histoire naturelle des reptiles, avec
figures desinées d’aprés nature. Deterville, Paris. Vol. 1, xx + 280 pp.,
14 pls.; vol. 2, 332 pp., 21 pls., vol. 3, 335 pp., 6 pls.; vol. 4, 410 pp., 13 pls.

STEJNEGER, LEONHARD. 1904. The herpetology of Porto Rico. Ann. Rept. U.S. Nat.
Mus., 1902: 549-724, figs. 1-196, pl. 1.

Stuart, L. C. 1963. A checklist of the herpetofauna of Guatemala, Misc. Publ.
Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan (122) : 1-150, map, frontis.

TscuupI, J.J. 1839. Classification der Batrachier mit Berucksichtigung der fossilen
Thiere. Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchatel 2 : 1-100, pls. 1-6.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

THE GENERIC NAMES FOR THE GIANT SALAMANDERS: PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION OF PROTEOCORD YLUS EICHWALD, 1831 AND
PALAEOTRITON FITZINGER, 1837. Z.N.(S.) 1751
(AMPHIBIA, CAUDATA)

By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

In the year 1837 Tschudi published two generic names within the group of
giant salamanders:

(a) Andrias Tschudi (1837 : 545), was based on fossil specimens generally

known as “‘ Homo tristis diluvii testis”; type-species, by monotypy,
Andrias scheuchzeri Tschudi, 1837 (= scheuchzeri Holl, 1831).

(b) Megalobatrachus Tschudi (1837 : 547) was based on material of the
recent japanese giant salamander: type-species, by monotypy, Megalo-
batrachus sieboldi Tschudi, 1837 (= japonicus Temminck, 1837).

(2) A third generic name within this group of salamanders is based on the
recent species of North America: Cryptobranchus Leuckart (1821 : 260), type-
species, by monotypy, Cryptobranchus salamandroides Leuckart, 1821 (= alle-
ganiensis Daudin, 1802).

(3) All these generic names are available names under the provisions of the
code; their validity is a matter of taxonomy. Some authors (e.g. Bronn, 1838 :
1166; Thenius, 1954: 174; Wahlert, 1965 : 35) recognize one genus only,
Cryptobranchus; Thenius divides Cryptobranchus into subgenera Cryptobran-
chus, Megalobairachus and Andrias. Others regard Cryptobranchus as a separate
genus, different from the palaearctic representatives: Megalobatrachus and
Andrias. Under the name Andrias these are grouped within a single genus,
again and in recent times by Westphal (1958). Relative priority is given in this
case to Andrias, one of the contemporaneous names; this preference is based on
an action by H. v. Meyer (1860 : 51) which is valid under the provisions of
Article 24a. Still others distinguish three different genera as they feel uncertain
about the identity of the fossil Andrias and the recent Megalobatrachus (of which
all anatomical details, ecology and ethology, including reproduction, are known).

(4) No action by the Commission is recommended as far as these three very
well-known names, Andrias, Megalobatrachus and Cryptobranchus, are con-
cerned. They are discussed here only for clarification of the nomenclatorical
background and as the basis of related problems.

(5) In 1831, Eichwald published a generic name, Proteocordylus; he (1831 :
165) attributes this name to Cuvier, but Cuvier never published it. This
generic name is based on the nominal species Proteocordylus diluvii Eichwald,
1831, which by monotypy, is its type-species. P. diluvii is an objective synonym
of Andrias scheuchzeri. Consequently, Proteocordylus proves to be a senior
objective synonym of Andrias. There is no doubt that a revival of the long
forgotten name Proteocordylus (for the last time it has been used was by Stejneger,
1907 : 3) is highly undesirable. As a “‘ nomen oblitum”’ it should be suppressed
by the Commission.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

(6) There is still another name which potentially could disturb established
usage of Andrias, i.e. of the names discussed in paragraphs (1) to (4): Palaeotriton
Fitzinger (1837 : 186). This name is based on the nominal species Salamandra
gigantea H. v. Meyer (1832 : 117), which is an objective synonym of scheuchzeri
and a homonym of Salamandra gigantea Barton, 1808 (= Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis Daudin, 1802). Both names, Andrias and Palaeotriton, were
published within the same year; but it remains uncertain if Palaeotriton has been
published earlier than September, 1837 (the date of Andrias). After its intro-
duction into literature by the original author, Palaeotriton has never been used
again as a valid name. So it seems an extreme of a “nomen oblitum”
and consequently it is proposed that it should be suppressed, under its plenary
powers, by the Commission.

(7) In detail, the following actions by the Commission are recommended:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names:

(a) Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831;

(b) Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837.

(2) to place the following names, suppressed under the plenary powers

under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic

Names in Zoology:

(a) Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831, a senior objective synonym of
Andrias Tschudi, 1837;

(b) Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837, a contemporaneous name and an
objective synonym of Andrias Tschudi, 1837.

REFERENCES

Bronn, H. G. 1838. Lethaea geognostica. Stuttgart

EICHWALD, E. 1831. Zoologia specialis. Pars posterior. Wilna

Firzincer, L. J. 1837. Uber Palaeosaurus sternbergii, eine neue Gattung vorwelt-
licher Reptilien und die Stellung dieser Thiere im Systeme iiberhaupt. Ann.
wien. Mus. Naturgesch. 2 : 172-187, Taf. 11

LeuckarT, S. 1821. Einiges iiber die fischartigen Amphibien. Jsis (Oken), Litt.
Anz. 1821 : 259-266, Taf. 5

Meyer, H. v. 1832. Palaeologica zur Geschichte der Erde und ihrer Geschdépfe.
Frankfurt a.M.

— 1860. Salamandrinen aus der Braunkohle am Rhein und BOhmen. Palaeonto-
graphica, Stuttgart, 7 : 47-73, Taf. 8, 9, Fig. 1

STEJNEGER, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus., Washington, 58

TuHENIUS, E. 1954. Uber das Vorkommen von Riesensalamandern (Cryptobran-
chidae, Amphibia) im Unterpliocin (Pannon) des Wiener Beckens. Paldont.
Z., Stuttgart, 28 : 172-177, 1 Abb.

Tscuupt, J. J. v. 1837. Uber den Homo diluvii testis, Andrias Scheuchzeri. Neues
Jb. Mineral., Geognos., Geol., Petref., Stuttgart, 1837 : 545-547

WaAHLERT, G. v. 1965. Molche und Salamander. Stuttgart (Franckh’sche Verlags-
handlung)

WESTPHAL, F. 1958. Die tertiaren und rezenten eurasiatischen Riesensalamander
(Genus Andrias, Urodela, Amphibia). Palaeontographica, Stuttgart, 110,
A : 20-92, Taf. 3-9, 4 Abb.

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PHELSUMA ORNATUM GRAY, 1825 (SAURIA): PROPOSED ADDITION
TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID SPECIFIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1752

By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

The name Phelsuma ornatum was first introduced into literature by J. E. Gray
(1825 : 199). The original description reads as follows: “‘ Brown, back orna-
mented with six rows of red oval spots. Capt. King”; these few descriptive
words seem to be totally insufficient, even for the time of their publication.
Later on, the name ornatum (or the corrected form ornata) has been mentioned
only two times by the original author: (a) in King’s Report on his Voyage
(1827 : 428) and (b) in Griffith’s Animal Kingdom (1831 : 48). Then, in his
** Catalogue ” (1845 : 166), Gray declared ornatum a synonym of Phelsuma
cepedianus (Merrem 1820). Beginning from this time, i.e. for more than 120
years, ornatum (or, corrected, ornata) never has been mentioned as a valid name,
but in monographical treatments only in the synonymy of Phelsuma cepediana or
inunguis (Boulenger 1885 : 211; Loveridge 1942 : 448; Mertens 1962 : 92).

(2) In recent times, Jean Vinson examined the type-specimen of Phelsuma
ornatum in the collections of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.): he discovered
that ornatum is not a synonym of cepediana (as established more than 120 years
before by the original author) but a senior synonym of vinsoni Mertens (1963 :
353) as published in the combination Phelsuma vinsoni.

(3) Phelsuma ornata is a forgotten name, based on a totally insufficient
diagnosis that has remained completely unused in the literature for more than
120 years. This is much more than a “ nomen oblitum ”’ as it has been defined
in relevant discussions of the last years. In contrast to this the name vinsoni in
the meantime has been used by various authors (Honegger, Mertens, Vinson),
and also in a monographical treatment (Mertens, 1966); here vinsoni is regarded
as the valid name of a polytypical species. So I ask the International Commission
to use its plenary powers in order to suppress ornatum for the purposes of
Priority but not for Homonymy and place on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

ornatum J. E. Gray 1825, as published in the combination Phelsuma ornatum

(Ann. Philos., 10 : 199).

REFERENCES

BouLeNGER, G. A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (2) 1.
London

Gray, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of Reptiles and Amphibia, with a
description of some new species. Ann. Philos., London, 10 : 193-217

—— 1827. Reptilia. Appendix in: P. P. King, Narrative of a survey of the inter-
tropical and western coasts of Australia, performed between the years 1818 and
1822 etc. 2. London

—— 1831. A synopsis of the species of the class Reptilia in: Griffith, Animal
Kingdom 9 : 1-110. London

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177

Gray, J. E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British
Museum. London

LoveripGe, A. 1942. Revision of the Afro-Oriental Geckos of the genus Phelsuma.
Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Cambridge, Mass.: 89 : 439-482

MERTENS, R. 1962. Die Arten und Unterarten der Geckonengattung Phelsuma.
Senckenb, biol., Frankfurt a.M., 43 : 81-127, Taf. 7-10

—— 1963. Zwei neue Arten der Geckonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenb. biol.,
Frankfurt a.M., 44 : 349-356, 2 Abb.

— 1966. Die nichtmadagassischen Arten und Unterarten der Geckonengattung
Phelsuma. Senckenb., biol., Frankfurt a.M., 47 : 85-110, 2 Abb.

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HIPPOCAMPUS ERECTUS PERRY (1810) (PISCES): PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1753

By Myvanwy M. Dick (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

The common seahorse of the Western Atlantic is listed under the name
Hippocampus hudsonius De Kay, 1842, in virtually all the ichthyological litera-
ture of the last one hundred years. For instance it is the name used in the
following ten authorative works:

1. New York Fauna and Fishes, 1842, p. 322

2. History of the Fishes of Massachusetts. Storer, 1867, p. 222

3. Fishes of North and Middle America. Jordan and Evermann, 1896,
Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47 (1) : 777

4. Catalogue of the Fishes of New York. T. Bean, 1903, Bull. Univ. of the
State of N.Y.: 349-351.

5. Checklist of Fishes. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. 1928 (2) : 244

6. Review of the Seahorses. I. Ginsburg, 1937, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 83,
No. 2997 : 551-560

7. The Pelagic fish eggs and larvae of Block Island Sound. Merriman,
D. and R. C. Sclar, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 13, 1952 : 180

8. Sound Production. Marie Fish, Copeia 1953 : 98-99

9. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953, Fish. Bull.
Fish and Wildlife Service 53 : 315-316

10. Guide to Marine Fishes. Perlmutter, 1961 : 340-341.

Recently it has been suggested by Dr. James Bohlke of the Philadelphia
Academy of Science that the name Hippocampus erectus Perry be revived, a
name not used in the primary zoological literature in the preceding period of
well over one hundred years. The description given by Perry is so vague and
indeterminate that it is applicable to almost any species of seahorse. It contains
no counts of meristic characters nor statements on proportions which are the
chief diagnostic characters in the genus Hippocampus. The plate is an imagin-
ary drawing which again does not contain any diagnostic features. There is no
known type specimen. It must be considered an unidentifiable nomen dubium.

In order that the stability of nomenclature in the genus Hippocampus not be
disturbed I herewith request the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name erectus Perry
(1810) (Arcana; or the Museum of Natural History: pl. 1, Dec. 1810), as
published in the binomen Hippocampus erectus, for the purposes of
the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the specific name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name hudsonius De Kay, 1842 (Zoology of New York,
Pt. 4, Fishes : 322, pl. 53, fig. 171), as published in the binomen
Hippocampus hudsonius, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179

TECTARIUS (MOLLUSCA: GASTROPODA) : REQUEST FOR
VALIDATION IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE. Z.N.(S.) 1754

A. Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, California 94305,
U.S.A.)

While revising the family Littorinidae for the ‘‘ Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology ”’, | was obliged to conclude that the name Tectarius, as commonly
applied to a taenioglossate group of prosobranch gastropods, is nomenclaturally
invalid. The proposal of Tectarius is credited to Valenciennes, 1832 (‘‘ 1833 ”’)
(“ Voy. Intér. Amer. [Humboldt & Bonpland], Obs. Zool. II, 271’’, as cited by
Sherborn and by Neave), although authors are not in agreement as to the type-
species. The name was actually published in the report on a Voyage to the
Americas by Humboldt and Bonpland. Clarification is required both for the
status of the name and for the interpretation of the type-species. The proposal
is in French, not Latin. One might translate pertinent passages as follows:

TECTAIRE
The genus Monodonta has been divided off by Lamarck from Trochus

Linné but without separating this new genus, the Tectaires of Denis Mont-

fort. Lamarck thought that the form of the shells places them near Trochus,

with which he had united them previously. But Cuvier thinks otherwise; in
dissecting the animal of Monodonta he has found that this gastropod is
similar to Turbo.... This illustrious anatomist however keeps the genus

Tectaire of Denis Montfort as a division of Trochus. Blainville is of the same

opinion. I shall follow the procedure recommended by these two famous

zoologists ; and as the shell collected by Humboldt and Bonpland is similar to

Trochus tectum-persicum of Linné, I am describing it as a new species of the

genus Tectaire.

“* Tectaire couronné
“* Tectarius coronatus. . . . ““ [Here follows a formal specific description.]

When one examines the “ Tectaire ” of Montfort (1810, Conch. Syst. 2 : 186-
187) one finds that the latinized form was spelled Tectus. The type-species of
Tectus, by original designation, is T. pagodalis Montfort, figured on his page
186. This figure is recognizable as Trochus mauritianus Gmelin, 1791. The
Tectus of Montfort is currently accepted as a genus in the rhipidoglossate
family Trochidae, a division of Archaeogastropoda, whereas the Littorinidae are
in Mesogastropoda. Tectus has nacreous shell material; Tectarius of authors
does not, its shell material being porcelaneous.

The manner in which Valenciennes introduced the name Tectarius makes it
an incorrect subsequent spelling of Tectus, for he merely latinized the vernacular
“ Tectaire ”’ of Montfort in a different way. His intention to use Montfort’s
genus is obvious, and he nowhere gives indication that he wished to propose a
new generic taxon. As a spelling error, then, Tectarius under Article 33 (b) of the
Code has no status in nomenclature. Even if interpreted as an emendation
[Art. 33 (a) (ii)], it would fall as a junior objective synonym.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4 October 1966.

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

As to the interpretation of the type-species of the Tectarius of authors:
Clench and Abbott in 1942 (Johnsonia 1 (4) : 1) were first to cite one of the two
included specific names as type-species. They selected T. coronatus. However,
this form has never been figured. Some authors have interpreted it as T. pago-
dus (Linné, 1758). Others have cited the name but not attempted a synonymy.
Through the courtesy of Dr. Edouard Fischer-Piette, I have obtained a photo-
graph of Valenciennes’ type specimen, which is in the Muséum national d’His-
toire naturelle de Paris. The form is easily recognizable as the one commonly
called “* Trochus bullatus Martyn 1784” (a name published in a work rejected by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 456);
the earliest available name for this specific taxon seems to be Trochus
grandinatus Gmelin, 1791.

Junior synonyms are available that could replace Tectarius and that would
stand in the way of disregarding Tectarius Valenciennes as a spelling error and
dating it from its subsequent validation by a later author, such as Fischer, 1885.
These are: Echinella Swainson, 1840 (Treatise Malac.: 221), type-species by
subsequent designation of Herrmannsen, 1847, Monodonta coronaria Lamarck,
1816 [not preoccupied by Echinella Bory St. Vincent, 1824, a diatom], plus
Echinellopsis Rovereto, 1899, pro Echinella as a supposed homonym; Pagodus
Gray, 1839, and Pagodella Swainson, 1840, both based on Turbo pagodus
Linné, 1758. None of these available names has been used for the group
Tectarius of authors in the major zoological literature. On the contrary,
Tectarius has had wide currency, the several species that have been assigned to it
being distributed in the East and West Pacific and in the Caribbean.

Therefore, in the interests of stability of nomenclature, the Commission
asked,

(1) Under the plenary powers to declare that Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832,1

is to be considered a new name, although it was actually an incorrect
spelling for Tectus Montfort, 1810;

(2) to place the generic name Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832 (gender : mascu-
line), type-species by designation by Clench & Abbott, 1942, Tec-
tarius coronatus Valenciennes, 1832, on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name grandinatus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the
binomen Trochus grandinatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

* The title page of the Humboldt and Bonpland work is dated 1833, and this date has been
accepted by some authors; however, according to Hertlein and Strong (1955), the publication
was noticed by Ducles in May 1832 in the Annales des Sciences Naturelle, Paris, vol. 21,
p. 110.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181

HIPPELLA MOERCH (MOLLUSCA: PELECYPODA): REQUEST FOR
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1755

A. Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University,
California 94305, U.S.A.)

In 1859-61 O. A. L. Moerch published a report on a collection of mollusks
from the west coast of Central America (Malakozoologische Blatter 6 : 102-26;
7: 66-106, 170-213), describing, without illustrations, a number of new
species and one new genus. All type specimens were deposited in the Museum
of the University of Copenhagen. The new genus was named Hippella (p. 199,
Jan. 1861), the type-species of which was H. hippopus, sp. nov. (monotypy),
type locality, Puntarenas, Costa Rica. Other authors seem not to have studied
the type material of Hippella, although search was made for it some years ago, it
was not recovered until recently and the name has generally been ignored.

Moerch interpolated Hippella between Crassatella and Kellia in his list
but did not assign it to a family. He compared it with Chama, Hippopus, and
Plicatula, genera not closely related to each other and that have in common only
a triangular form and widely spaced strong ribs. He also mentioned Verti-
cordia Sowerby, 1844, but only to say that Hippella was not related to this
genus, and he did not mention the brilliantly nacreous interior that is the hall-
mark of Verticordia. The first subsequent author to attempt identification of the
genus was Dall, in 1903 (Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. 3 (6) : 1509, 1513), who
erroneously recorded the name of the type-species as “ H. hippagus,” and who
arbitrarily placed Hippella in the synonymy of Verticordia. So far as I can find,
the name has been cited only once since, by Thiele, 1934 (Handbuch Weichtier-
kunde: 944), who followed Dall’s lead in synonymizing it. Because of Moerch’s
disclaimer of this relationship and because of other discrepancies between
Moerch’s description and the morphology of Verticordia—such as the structure
of the hinge and the relative spacing of the ribs—I have had increasing doubts
as to the correctness of this conclusion. Looking through a recently-published
manual of bivalves from this general area (Olsson, 1961: Panama-Pacific
Pelecypoda, Paleontological Research Institution: 191, pl. 77, fig. 4) I found a
figure and description that matched, point for point, the characteristics Moerch
had enumerated for Hippella: number of ribs (9); sculpture (granular), size
(2 mm. in diameter); hinge details (presence of cardinal teeth); and—most
importantly—the presence of a laminar ridge bounding the juvenile part of the
shell. Until Olsson’s figures became available, Moerch’s description could not
properly be understood. The timely recovery of Moerch’s types now reinforces
this identification, for Olsson’s figure of a Panama specimen could have been
made from one of Moerch’s syntypes.

Olsson’s species was described from a Pleistocene fossil in 1942 as Condy-
locardia panamensis (Bulletins of American Paleontology 27 (105) : 186, pl. 3,
fig. 9). In his 1961 work, he refigured the species and recorded it also as living
in Panama. Moerch’s record thus would be a slight extension of geographic
range northward. The genus Condylocardia to which Olsson assigned his

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

species was described by Bernard in 1896 (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 2 : 193),
type-species (subsequent designation, Bernard, 1897), C. sancti-pauli, from St.
Paul Island in the southern Indian Ocean. This genus was known to Dall in
1903, but as at that time no American representatives were known, he, under-
standably, did not connect it with Hippella.

The generic name Hippella qualifies as a nomen oblitum because it has not
been used in the major zoological literature and it has been a senior synonym
for more than 50 years. Condylocardia is the type of the family-group CONDYLO-
CARDIIDAE Bernard, 1896, a family currently placed in the Carditacea. There are
now two known species of Condylocardia on the West Central American coast,
two or more in the Tertiary and Recent of the Western Atlantic, about six in the
southern hemisphere (islands of the South Pacific and southern Indian Ocean),
and at least one from the Eocene of the Paris Basin, France.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
asked, in the interests of stability of nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Hippella Moerch,

1861, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Priority;

(2) to place the generic name Condylocardia Bernard, 1896 (gender : femi-
nine), type-species by designation by Bernard, 1897, Condylocardia
sanctipauli Bernard, 1896, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:

(a) sanctipauli Bernard, 1896, as published in the binomen Condylo-
cardia sanctipauli (type-species of Condylocardia Bernard,

1896);
(b) hippopus Moerch, 1861, as published in the binomen Hippella
hippopus ; zi

(4) to place the family-group name CONDYLOCARDIIDAE Bernard, 1896,
(correction of CONDYLOCARDIDES) (type-genus Condylocardia Bernard,
1896) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology;

(5) to place the generic name Hippella Moerch, 1861, as suppressed under
the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183

PLANULINA DUMBLEI (APPLIN, 1925) (FORAMINIFERA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN
FAVOUR OF PLANULINA TAYLORENSIS (CARSEY, 1926).
Z.NAS.) 1756

By J. D. McLean, Jr. (Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.A.)

In consideration of the nearly universal usage of the name Planulina taylor-
ensis (Carsey) in the literature as opposed to Planulina dumblei (Applin), it is
herewith petitioned that Planulina dumblei (Applin) be suppressed under the
plenary powers. The species in question is a recognized marker or guide
species for designating certain geological age units, and, as such, it will create
undue confusion and hardship on those who refer to it if the usage-name is
replaced by P. dumblei, its senior synonym.

In addition to the above major reason, the following additional details may
be considered:

1. Prior to publication of the description of Truncatulina dumblei by Applin
(in Applin, Ellisor, and Kniker, 1925, pp. 86-88, 99), Dumble and Applin
(1924, p. 342) published a reference to the species Truncatulina taylorensis,
indicating that the name had, for them and others, full validity.

2. Applin, in discussing Truncatulina dumblei in the article wherein she
described and named the species, clearly indicated it to be a variant of A.
taylorensis, whose sole reason for definition was in her belief, stated in the
remarks, that the form could not have been reworked from Cretaceous beds as
‘insisted upon by one co-author. The sole morphological character that she could
give for discrimination of the supposed Miocene form from its Cretaceous
equivalent, was a slight rounding of the apertural face.

3. It was subsequently established that the form is, in fact, reworked from
the Cretaceous, and is so conceded by Applin. This not only removes the major
reason for description as 7. dumblei, but it also establishes the fact that the “ type”
of T. dumblei came from material unsuitable for description as a type locality,
since its occurrence is entirely haphazard and out of normal position.

4. From her remarks and descriptive work, Applin clearly never challenged
the prior existence of A. taylorensis as a valid and acceptable species: at best
T. dumblei Applin must be regarded as a variant of A. taylorensis, and it should
be relegated to the status of an unusable synonym erected on unsupportable
premise as to occurrence, instead of true morphological variation.

5. At the time of description of T. dumblei, and the delay in formal descrip-
tion of A. taylorensis, the rigid and formalized descriptive requirements of the
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were imperfectly known to the
pioneers in the Gulf area, and formal publication was considered a side issue
to the work of actually establishing the faunal sequences of Foraminifera
throughout the geological column of the region. For this reason, a large body
of “‘ established ” species owed their definition to interchange of information
between working laboratories. The well-established journals of today were then
just beginning to come into existence, and publication of formal descriptions

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

was a matter of expediency and opportunity, in contradiction to modern
practice and opportunity.

6. Of the 28 references listed, the term Anomalina taylorensis appears nine
times, the term Planulina taylorensis occurs seventeen times, andtheterm Planulina
dumblei occurs twice. Since Anomalina taylorensis and Planulina taylorensis are
practically the same name, and differ only in generic decision by individual
authors, this means that 26 out of 28 times the term taylorensis predominates
over dumblei. It may be stated that these represent only the available references
so far gathered. The final analysis would probably indicate that Planulina
taylorensis as a term predominates even more heavily over Planulina dumblei
than would be suspected from the above list.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
requested :

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dumblei Applin,
1925, as published in the binomen Truncatulina dumblei, for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy;

(2) to place the specific name taylorensis Carsey, 1926, as published in the
binomen Anomalina taylorensis, on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name dumblei Applin, 1925, as published in the
binomen Truncatulina dumblei (as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology.

REFERENCES

APPLIN, E. R., KNIKER, H. T., & ELtisor, A. C. 1925. Subsurface Stratigraphy of
the Coastal Plains of Texas and Louisiana, A.A.P.G. Bull. 9 : 79-122

Burma, B. H., undated. Gulf Coast Guide Fossils, Chart p. 5, privately printed

CarsEy, D. O. 1926. Foraminifera of the Cretaceous of Central Texas. Univ.
Texas Bull. No. 2612: 1-53

Cote, W. Storrs. 1938. Stratigraphy and Micropaleontology of Two Deep Wells
in Florida, Florida Geol. Survey Bull. 16 : 7-73, 12 pls., 3 figs.

CusHMAN, J. A. 1931. The Foraminifera of the Saratoga Chalk. J. Paleont.
5(4) : 297-315

—— 1931. A Preliminary Report on the Foraminifera of Tennessee. Tennessee
Division of Geology, Bull. 41 : 1-62

—— 1932. The Foraminifera of the Annona Chalk. J. Paleont. 6(4) : 330-345.

—— 1940. American Upper Cretaceous Foraminifera of the Family Anomalinidae.
Contr. Cushman Foram. Res. 16(2) : 27-40

—— 1946. Upper Cretaceous Foraminifera of the Gulf Coastal Region of the
United States and Adjacent Areas. U.S. Geological Surv. Prof. Paper 206:
1-241

— 1948. Foraminifera, Hammond Well. Maryland Board Nat. Res., Dept.
Geol., Mines and Water Resources, Bull. 2: 213-267

—— & Deaperick, W. H., 1942. Cretaceous Foraminifera from the Brownstown
Marl of Arkansas. Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 18(3) : 50, 66

— & DEADERICK, W. H., 1944. Cretaceous Foraminifera from the Marlbrook
Marl of Arkansas. J. Paleont. 18(4) : 328, 341

Dump LE, E. T. & APPLIN, E. R., 1924. Sub-Surface Geology of Idolo Island, Vera
Cruz, Mexico. Pan-American Geologist 41 : 335-346

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185

Easton, H. D. 1939. Producing Zones On and Around the Sabine Uplift. Nat.
Oil Scouts Assoc. of Amer. Yearbook 9, Chart: 114

ETTER, JOHN. 1961. Paleontological Zonation of the Texas Gulf Coast, Chart,
Sinclair Paleont. Lab. (Texas)

FrizzeLL, D. L. 1954. Handbook of Cretaceous Foraminifera of Texas, Bur. of
Econ. Geol., Univ. Texas, No. 22, pp. 1-230

LOETTERLE, G. J. 1937. The Micropaleontology of the Niobrara Formation in
Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota. Nebraska Geol. Surv. Bull. 12, Sec.
Series

McLEan, J. D., Jr. 1953. A Summary of the Guide Fossil Foraminifera of the
Atlantic Coastal Plains Between New Jersey and Georgia. A Revision. Reps.
McLean Foram. Lab. No. 1, Chart, p.11

— 1957. A Cretaceous Foraminifera Fauna from the Banks of the Chesapeake
and Delaware Canal. Reps. McLean. Paleont. Lab. No. 3 : 13, 21

— 1960. Stratigraphy of the Parris Island Area, South Carolina. Reps. McLean
Paleont. Lab. No. 4, Chart, p. 20

—— (Editor) 1966. Manual of Micropaleontological Stratigraphy. 5, Planulina
taylorensis Zone: 1-22

National Oil Scouts and Landmen’s Assoc. Yearbook, 1944, 14 : 28

NUNNALLY, JEFF Dorris, & FOWLER, HENRY FLorREyY. 1955. Lower Cretaceous
Stratigraphy of Mississippi. Trans. G.C.A.G.S. 5 : 212-213

PLUMMER, H. J. 1931. Some Cretaceous Foraminifera in Texas. Univ. Texas Bull.
No. 3101: 107-239 and plates

SANDIDGE, J. R. 1932. Foraminifera from the Ripley Formation of Western Ala-
bama. J. Paleont. 6(3) : 265-287

SHEARER, H. J., & Hutson, E. B. 1930. The Dixie Oil Pool, Caddo Parish, La.
A.A.P.G. 14(6) : 743-763

Tuomas, J. L., & Rice, E. M. 1931. Notes on the Saratoga Chalk. J. Paleont
5(4) : 316-328

VANDERPOOL, H. C. 1930. Cretaceous Section of Maverick County, Texas. J.
Paleont. 4(3) : 252-262

SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TRUNCATULINA DUMBLEI
APPLIN

ee following letter was addressed to Dr. J. D. McLean, Jr., by Mrs. Esther R.
Applin]:

I am completely in accord with your efforts relating to the suppression of the name
Planulina dumblei (Applin) in favor of the Planulina taylorensis (Carsey).

As I have stated many times, when I described P. dumblei I recognized its close
similarity to the fossil at that time commonly referred to as Anomalina taylorensis, a
then undescribed, but already well known characterizing fossil of the Taylor (Cam-
panian) Group of Texas. However, because of the perfection of its preservation, a
marked difference in the character of the shell structure, and other details given in the
data presented with your petition, I felt justified, at the time, in giving a new name to
the varietal form I described.

I was pleased when Mrs. Carsey published her description of Anomalina taylorensis,
thus, as I believed, authenticating the name already in common use for the Taylor
(Cretaceous) species.

The whereabouts of the type of the variety I described, and of the materials from
which it was selected, are now unknown.

I am most grateful for your assistance in this matter and trust that your petition
will be favorably received.

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

GRACILARIA HAWORTH, 1828 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES.
ZINA TT

By Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu) and N. D. Riley
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List the names Gracilaria
(Haworth, 1828) Zeller, 1839, emendation, and GRACILARIIDAE Stainton, 1854,
and to place on the Official Index the generic spelling Gracillaria and its deriva-
tive GRACILLARIIDAE. The facts are as follows:

1. Haworth (1828: 527) proposed the generic name Gracillaria, but in so
doing he misspelled the word which is derived from the Latin gracilis. He
should have used a single “‘ | ”—Gracilaria.

2. Zeller (1839: 208) emended the spelling, without specifically stating that
he was so doing, to Gracilaria which is classically correct and was a justified
emendation (Art. 33a (i)). Such an emendation comes within the accepted rules
of the Code (Articles 32 and 33). The spelling Gracilaria was accepted by the
Oxford and Cambridge University experts who assembled “ An Accentuated
List of the British Lepidoptera with Hints on the Derivation of the Names ”’,
1858, by Edward Meyrick, who was a teacher of classics, and by numerous
other authors.

3. Considerable confusion exists in literature because of the variant spellings
of this generic and family-group name. Therefore, in the interest of stability,
the Commission is asked:

(1) to place the generic name Gracilaria (emend. of Gracillaria) Haworth,
1828 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Curtis, 1833,
Gracillaria anastomosis Haworth, 1828, on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

(2) to place the specific name syringella Fabricius, 1794, as published in the
binomen Tinea syringella, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology. [A senior subjective synonym of Gracillaria anastomosis
Haworth, 1828];

(3) to place the family-group name GRACILARIIDAE Stainton, 1854 (type-genus
Gracilaria Haworth, 1828) on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology;

(4) to place the generic name Gracillaria Haworth, 1828 (an incorrect
original spelling for Gracilaria) on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;

(5) to place the family-group name GRACILLARIIDAE Morris, 1870 (type-
genus Gracilaria Haworth, 1828) (an incorrect spelling for GRACILA-
RIDAE Stainton, 1854) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187

REFERENCES

ANonyMous. 1858. An Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera with Hints on the
Derivation of Names, pp. i-xliv, 1-118. Entomological Societies of Oxford and
Cambridge. John Van Voorst, London

Curtis. 1833. Brit. Ent. 10 : pl. 479

Fasricius. 1794. Ent. syst. 3(2) : 328

HAworTH. 1828. Lep. Brit. 4 : 527

Morris. 1870. Nat. Hist. Brit. Butt. Moths 4 : 153

STAINTON. 1854a. Jns. Brit., Lep. Tin. : 193

—— 1854b. List. Brit. Anim. B.M. (16) : 116

ZELLER. 1839. Jsis (Oken) 1839 : 209

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

NEOLYCAENA DeNICEVILLE, 1890 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA,
LYCAENIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. _ Z.N.(S.) 1758

By Lieut.Col. C. F. Cowan (Berkhamsted, Herts., England)

DeNicéville described in detail the new genus Neolycaena, concluding
“Type Lycaena sinensis Alphéraky.” (Butterflies of India, Burmah & Ceylon
3 : 64, 1890). On the following page he discussed the species Neolycaena
sinensis by giving a translation of the whole of Alphéraky’s description. He
then added:

““ My knowledge of this species is confined to a single specimen taken by

Lieutenant E. Y. Watson on 21 June 1885 at Gunduk, which is situated in the

Sarakola Pass, to the N.E. of Quetta, Biluchistan. Half of this specimen has

been bleached for examination of the neuration. The figure (/.c., pl. 26, fig.

166) shows both sides of this specimen, which is in my own collection.”

This half-specimen, a female with damaged abdomen, survives in the
British Museum (Nat. Hist.) collection, together with a further sixteen also
taken in the mountains near Quetta by Evans, who pointed out that it is abun-
dantly distinct from sinensis (see J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 36 : 207, No. 92;
1932), and had just named it Neolycaena connae (Identification of Indian Butter-
flies: 247; 1932). The male holotype of connae Evans is in the type collection at
the British Museum (Nat. Hist.).

It is clear that connae Evans was the species which deNicéville had before
him when introducing Neolycaena. It is arguable, however, that his subsequent
full quotation of the original description validates his positive nomination of
sinensis as the type-species. (The type-locality of sinensis Alphéraky 1881,
Hor. ent. Ross. 16 : 383, pl. 14, fig. 7, is Koulja, Sinkiang, 1200 miles from
Quetta).

No recent publications can be found on this small genus, to provide a basis
on which to stabilise nomenclature, but a decision on the fixation of the type-
species is desirable in order to avoid future uncertainty. No other generic name
is applicable to either species.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore,
in accordance with Article 70(a) of the Rules of Nomenclature, requested
either (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species

for the genus Neolycaena deNicéville, 1890, made prior to the ruling
now proposed and, having done so, to designate as the type-species of
that genus the species Neolycaena connae Evans, 1932;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the generic
name Neolycaena deNicéville, 1890, Butterflies of India, Burmah &
Ceylon 3 : 64 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under
the plenary powers in (1) above, Neolycaena connae Evans, 1932,
Identification of Indian Butterflies: 247;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific
name connae Evans, 1932, as published in the binomen Neolycaena
connae (type-species of Neolycaena deNicéville, 1890);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189

or (1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
name Neolycaena deNicéville, 1890, Butterflies of India, Burmah &
Ceylon 3 : 64(gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation,
Lycaena sinensis Alphéraky, 1881, Hor. ent. Ross. 16 : 383;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific
name sinensis Alphéraky, 1881, as published in the binomen Lycaena
sinensis (type-species of Neolycaena deNicéville, 1890).

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ANOPHELES ERRABUNDUS (SWELLENGREBEL, 1925) (INSECTA,
DIPTERA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION AS A SPECIFIC NAME UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1760

By J. A. Reid (c/o Department of Entomology,
British Museum (Natural History), London)

and J. Bonne-Wepster (Adviser on Medical Entomology,
Institute for Tropical Hygiene, Amsterdam)

Swellengrebel (Ned. Tijdschr. Geneesk. 69 : 1913, 1925), under the name
Cellia errabunda, described a new species of Anopheles based on four females
said to have been captured in South-East Borneo. He pointed out the very
close resemblance of the specimens to the South American species Anopheles
argyritarsis, and named the new species errabunda, or vagrant, because it
seemed to have wandered far from home.

2. Edwards (Gen. Insect. 194, 1932) and Christophers (Faun. Brit. India.
Diptera 4, Anophelini, 1933), who do not appear to have seen any of the speci-
mens, treated errabundus as a possible synonym of Anopheles philippinensis, a
common Oriental species which errabundus superficially resembles.

3. No further specimens of errabundus have been collected in Borneo or
anywhere else in the Oriental region, and later workers have followed Edwards
and Christophers in treating it as close to philippinensis, e.g. Gater (Aids to the
identification of anopheline imagines in Malaya, Singapore, 1935), and Bonne-
Wepster and Swellengrebel (The anopheline mosquitoes of the Indo-Australian
region, Amsterdam, 1953).

4. Examination of Swellengrebel’s four specimens of errabundus shows that
they are not related to philippinensis; for example they possess well marked
propleural setae which are always lacking in philippinensis and other species of
the Neocellia series of subgenus Cellia.

5. In our opinion all four specimens belong to the purely South American
subgenus Nyssorhynchus and to the species known as Anopheles darlingi Root,
1926, which is an important vector of malaria and which resembles argyritarsis
as Swellengrebel pointed out. Doctors M. T. Gillies, P. F. Mattingly and Alan
Stone, who have kindly examined one or more of the specimens, agree that
errabundus is the same as darlingi, of which it is therefore a senior synonym.

6. Evidently the specimens were not collected in Borneo, but our enquiries
suggest that they were accidentally mixed with a collection of mosquitoes
received from Borneo.

7. In view of the importance of the name darlingi in public health, and to
avoid confusion and maintain stability, application is made to the Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name errabunda
Swellengrebel, 1925, as used in the binomen Cellia errabundus for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy;

(2) to place the name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Reject-
ed and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 191

ENITHARES SPINOLA, 1837 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): PROPOSED
USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES.
ZN AGS.); 172

By I. Lansbury (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum,
Oxford, England)

Spinola in 1837 (Essai sur les Genres d’Insectes, appartenants a l’order des
Hémiptéres, Lin. Genes: 60) proposed the genus Enithares and included two
species, Notonecta indica Fabricius, 1803, from ‘“‘ De Bombay, envoyée par
M. Dupont” and a new species E. brasiliensis from ‘‘ Du Brésil, envoyée par
M. Buquet ”’.

2. Kirkaldy in 1897 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1897 : 393) designated, by a
footnote, the type-species of Enithares Spinola, 1837, in the following phrase
“IT am not aware that any author has indicated a type for this genus, and
therefore now set apart E. indica for that purpose ”’. Kirkaldy in the same page
in the main text made a lapsus calami in referring to Spinola’s indica as N.
indica Linnaeus, whereas Spinola, 1837, clearly states his indica is that of
Fabricius, 1803.

3. I have examined the male holotype of N. indica Fabricius, 1803 (Syst.
Rhyngotorum: 102) from Sumatra, Dom Daldorff, preserved in the Universi-
tetets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhvn. It is an earlier name for Enithares
intricata Breddin, 1905. However, the Fabrician name is preoccupied by
Notonecta indica Linnaeus, 1771 (Mantissa Plantarum: 534) and therefore
Enithares intricata must continue to be used as the next available name. It
has been found after studying extensive collections of Enithares that E. intricata
is distributionally limited to Sumatra and Java; it is therefore clear that Spinola
(para. 1) was in error in referring to the Bombay specimen as N. indica Fabri-
cius, 1803.

4. Fabricius in 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst.: 524-525) described Notonecta
ciliata from Indiae aquis, Dom Daldorff. Fieber in 1852 (Rozpr. mat. -piir.
K. ceské Spol. Nauk (5)7 : 470-472) over-looked this species and Kirkaldy
in 1904 (Wien. ent. Ztg. 23 : 95-110, 113) erroneously included it in the genus
Anisops Spinola, 1837. Lundblad in 1933 (Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 12 : 148)
pointed out that N. ciliata was an Enithares. 1 have examined the holotype
female of N. ciliata which is preserved in the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum,
Kobenhvn. The specimen is very badly damaged, all that remains is the thorax
with the median and one hind leg and the elytra. There are however, sufficient
diagnostic features left, i.e. metaxyphus and nodal furrow, to show that N.
ciliata is an earlier name for Notonecta abbreviata Kirby (1891, J. Linn. Soc.
(Zool.) 24 : 126).

5. Kirkaldy in 1900 (Entomologist 33 : 10) considered that as N. indica
Fabricius, 1803, was preoccupied by N. indica Linnaeus, 1771, that the former
should take the next available name which Kirkaldy thought was N. abbreviata.
As has previously been mentioned, N. indica F. = E. intricata Breddin is
confined to Sumatra and Java. N. abbreviata = N. ciliata is a widespread

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Indian and South East Asian species. I have compared the holotype of N.
ciliata with the type of N. abbreviata preserved in the British Museum (Natural
History) and find them conspecific; comparison of the holotype of N. indica
Fabricius with N. ciliata Fabricius and N. abbreviata Kirby shows that N.
indica is clearly distinct.

6. It is considered that N. indica Fabricius sensu Spinola 1837, is a mis-
identification. Of the five species of Enithares recorded from India three,
E. triangularis (Guérin Ménéville), E. hungerfordi Brooks and E. fusca Brooks
are all confined to Southern India, that is south of Madras; the fourth E.
lineatipes Hérvath is restricted to the Punjab, Baluchistan etc., only N. ciliata
is common and widespread.

7. With the facts set out in para. 6, it is quite clear that Kirkaldy (1897)
unwittingly based his type-species designation for Enithares (para. 2) on a
misidentification of Spinola (para. 1).

8. Since no change of generic name is involved in the determination of the
type-species of the genus I ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
the nominal genus Enithares Spinola, 1837, made prior to the Ruling
now requested and, having done so, to designate Notonecta ciliata
Fabricius, 1798, as type-species of that genus;

(2) to place the generic name Enithares Spinola, 1837 (gender : feminine),
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Notonecta ciliata Fabricius, 1798, on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name ciliata Fabricius, 1798, as published in the
binomen Notonecta ciliata (type-species of Enithares Spinola, 1837)
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L. A. (Secretary and Managing Director)

Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E.
Prof. Dr. R. Spiarck
Dr. N. R. Stoll

Mr. C. W. Wright

Dr. G. F. de Witte

B. The Officers of the Trust

W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller)
Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)
New Cases

Cosmopterix Hubner, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a
type-species under the plenary powers (Ronald W. Hodges) er

Chromis aureus Steindachner, 1864 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official
List of Specific Names (E. Trewavas)

Otolithus aureus Richardson, 1846 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the ‘Official
List of Specific Names (E. Trewavas)

Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression under
the plenary powers (A. C. Pont) oe

Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under the
plenary powers (Carl Gans)

STENOPODINAE in Insecta and STENOPODIDAE in Crustacea: Proposed u use e of the
plenary powers to remove the homonymy (W. E. China)

Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] v. Capys Hewitson, 1864 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): A
case of a forgotten name (N. D. Riley) Be

Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia): Request for suppression under
the plenary powers (Richard G. Zweifel) :

Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 (Amphibia): Proposed suppression under plenary
powers (Hobart M. Smith, John D. Lynch and Robert W. Reese)

The generic names for the Giant Salamanders: Proposed suppression of
Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831 and Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837
(Amphibia) (Robert Mertens)

Phelsuma ornatum Gray, 1825 (Sauria): Proposed addition to the ‘Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (Robert
Mertens)

Hippocampus brectux Perry, (1810) (Pisces): Proposed ‘suppression under the
plenary powers (Myvanwy M. Dick) .

Tectarius (Gastropoda): Request for validation in its ‘accustomed s sense (A.
Myra Keen)...

Hippella Moerch (Pelecypoda): Request for suppression under the plenary
powers (A. Myra Keen) se

Planulina dumblei (Applin, 1925) (Foraminifera): Proposed suppression in
favour of Planulina taylorensis (Carsey, 1926) (J. D. McLean, Jr.)

Page

155
157
158
160
162
164
165
167

169

174

175
178
179
181

183

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Gracilaria Haworth, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed addition to the

Official List of Generic Names (Elwood C. Zimmerman and N. D. Riley)
Neolycaena DeNicéville, 1890 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation
of a type-species under the plenary powers (C. F. Cowan) "
Anopheles errabundus (Swellengrebel, 1925) (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed
suppression as a specific name under the plenary powers (J. A. Reid and
J. Bonne-Wepster) ,
Enithares Spinola, 1837 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed use “of the plenary
powers to designate a type-species (I. Lansbury)

Comments

Comment on the proposals relating to Miris and MIRIDAE (Insecta, er etiey
(T. Jaczewski) . ore

Support for suppression of Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825 (D. E. Bright) . :

Comments on the proposed suppression of Anopheles africanus Theobald,
1901 (P. F. Mattingly; J. A. Reid)

Comments on the proposals regarding CHRYSOPINAE in Neuroptera and Diptera
(D. E. Kimmins; F. M. Carpenter) .

Comments on the, proposal to reject Mitra perlata (Roding, 1798 (CH. ‘Ai
Rehder; J. M. Cate) .

Conservation de Thereva hidiealenp trate: (F. 1798) comme type de Phasia
Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera) (C. Dupuis)

Alternative to the request for a Declaration pai the suppression of nomina
dubia (Hobart M. Smith)

Comment on the request for action on the name » Voluta | mitra ‘Linnaeus, 1758
(Gastropoda) (H. A. Rehder; Myra Keen) .

Comment on proposal to suppress four Richardson fish names s (W. L. Chan)

Comment on the proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the baie
BELONIDAE (G. F. Mees)

Support for the suppression of Truncatulina dumblei Applin . 'R. Applin) .

© 1966. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment

Page

186
188

190
191

131
132

132
132
133
134
145

146
146

149
185

Volume 23, Part 5 NS 20th December 1966
pp. 193-256/2 pls.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:
Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications maa
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ig ; SMALE fe |

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on
Zoological Noménclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 193

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1.

1966

Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (28 August 1963)

Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London,
S.W.7) (31 May 1960)

Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. CHINA (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)

B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16
December 1954)

Professor Per BrRincK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)

Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(23 July 1958)

Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)

Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (23 July 1958)

Professor Dr. Robert MerTENS (Natur-museum wu. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958)

Dr. D. V. OprucuHEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.)
(5 November 1958)

ica Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March

Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain)
(31 May 1960)

Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum(Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary)

Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa,
Canada) (9 June 1961) (Councillor)

ee W. A CHINA (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant

ecretary

Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962)

Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963)

Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans,
Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Norman R. Stoxt (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
(Councillor)

Dr. L. B. Hoxtruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(28 August 1963) (Acting President)

Professor Ernst MAyrR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor)

Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963)
(Councillor)

Dr. Carl L. Husps (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla
California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany)
(28 August 1963)

Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Curtis W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 23, Part 5 (pp. 193-256) 2 pls. 20th December, 1966

NOTICES

(a) Date of Commencement of Voting—tIn normal circumstances the
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present
part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the
present part of the Bulletin:

(1) Suppression of Salpa G. Edwards, 1771 (Pisces); Designation of type-
species for Thalia Blumenbach, 1798 (Tunicata). Z.N.(S.) 1651.

‘(2) Designation of a type-species for Patanga Uvarov, 1923 and of neotypes
for Acridium assectator Fischer von Waldheim, 1833, and Gryllus
succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Insecta, Orthoptera). Z.N. (S.) 1761.

(3) Designation of a type-species for Proteinus Latreille, 1796 (Insecta,
Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1763.

(4) Suppression of Musca lateralis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera).
Z.N.(S.) 1764.

(5) Suppression of Ratton, R. agreste, R. blancodebaxo, R. colibreve,
R. espinoso, R. tucotuco, all of Brants, 1827.(Mammalia).Z.N.(S.) 1775.

(6) Suppression of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 (Ascideacea). Z.N.(S.)
1766.

(7) Designation of a type-species for Thrix Doherty, 1891 (Insecta, Lepi-
doptera). Z.N.(S.) 1768.

(8) Suppression of Attus obscurus Taczanowski, 1872 (Araneae). Z.N.(S.)

1770.
(9) Designation of a type-species for Hypaeus Simon, 1900 (Araneae).
Z.N.(S.) 1771.
c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA
Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary
London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on

October 1966 Zoological Nomenclature

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO GIVE COLLIGNONICERAS
BREISTROFFER, 1947, PRIORITY AS FROM 1876. Z.N.(S.) 1738
(see this volume, pages 57-59)

By R. V. Melville (London)

I support the underlying purpose of this proposal, but not the method whereby it is
proposed to achieve it. The situation is that whereas Collignoniceras was proposed
expressly as a replacement-name for Prionotropis Meek, 1876, non Fieber, 1853,
Selwynoceras was not, and has a type-species which can never be the nominal type-
species of Collignoniceras. Selwynoceras is therefore a valid replacement for
Prionotropis Meek, non Fieber only for those who hold Ammonites woolgari Mantell
and Prionotropis? borealis Warren to be congeneric and consubgeneric. Wright and
Matsumoto hold that for these palaeontologists, Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947,
should have priority over Se/wynoceras Warren and Stelck, 1940.

This object could surely be achieved without going to the lengths of giving Colligno-
niceras priority as from the date (1876) of the name it replaced, thereby accepting a
particular case of a general rule that was struck out of the Code by the Washington
(1963) Congress. It would be sufficient for the Commission, in placing Collignoniceras
Breistroffer, 1947, on the Official List, to direct that it be given priority over Se/wyno-
ceras Warren and Stelck, 1940, by those authors who hold the two names to be syno-
nymous at any level within the genus-group.

COMMENT ON CHRYSOPINAE IN NEUROPTERA AND DIPTERA,
Z.N.(S.) 1725
(see volume 22, pages 332-333)

By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.)

The proposal to distinguish the dipterous group by the spelling Chrysopsinae is
reasonable and appropriate. Opinion 140 (1943) established a precedent for such
cases, when it distinguished Meropidae from Merops and Meropeidae from Merope.
For a similar proposal see Sabrosky and Zimmerman, 1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
23 : 46-47, who propose Trypetesinae and Trypetesini (from Trypetes Schoenherr) to
avoid homonymy with group names based on Trypeta Meigen.

The subfamily name Chrysopinae in Diptera dates from Lutz, 1905, Rev. Soc.
Sci. Sao Paulo1:21. Actually, the earliest use of a group name based on Chrysops
antedates that based on Chrysopa, but it was in a vernacular form: Chrysopites
Blanchard, 1840, Histoire naturelle des Insectes (volume 3 of Castelnau’s Histoire
naturelle des Animaux Articulés): 588, 590. In a later work (1845, Histoire des
Insectes 2 : 471, 474), Blanchard emended the name to Chrysopsites, still in the
vernacular but foreshadowing the proposal by Tjeder.

Chrysops should be recorded as of masculine gender on several grounds. It was
decided by the Commission at its meeting in Washington in 1963 to issue a Declaration
(still not formulated) that -ops names are to be considered of masculine gender (1964,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 172, Case 18). Furthermore, although the sole originally
included species, caecutiens, did not indicate the gender of Chrysops, in Meigen’s
subsequent treatment of the genus (1820, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten
europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten, 2 : 65-75), he clearly and consistently used
Chrysops as masculine (italicus, relictus, pictus, quadratus, etc.). Still earlier, Fabricius
(1805, Systema Antliatorum: 110-113) had also treated it as masculine (ferrugatus,
fenestratus, costatus, viduatus, pellucidus).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR
PHLAEOTHRIPS UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.NAS.) 1741
(see present volume, pages 126-128)

By Lewis J. Stannard (J/linois Natural History Survey, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

The request by L. A. Mound for invoking the plenary powers to suppress all
previous type designations for Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836, and instead to designate
Phlaeothrips coriacea Haliday, 1836, and to ratify the long accepted designation of
Trips corticis De Geer, 1773, nec Amyot and Serville, 1843, as the type-species of
Hoplothrips are solutions to nomenclatural problems that require decision under the
present Code. Previously in 1957 I proposed, as an alternative solution, that the
species named by Blanchard, Thrips ulmi Fabricius, 1781, be recognized as the valid
type-species for Ph/aeothrips. 1 had followed Hood’s line of reasoning (1915) when
he attempted to fix Trips corticis De Geer as the type-species of Hoplothrips regardless
of Karny’s misidentification. My original solution for Phlaeothrips is still acceptable
under Article 70a(iii), regardless of Blanchard’s misidentification.

However, because the bulk of literature on Phlaeothrips is based on coriaceus
Haliday and much modern literature on Hoplothrips is based on corticis De Geer,
according to the zoological concepts currently applied to these species, and because
most thysanopterists continue to reject Thrips ulmi as being the proper type-species
for Phlaeothrips for reasons within or without the limits of any Rules or Codes,
nomenclatural stability and uniformity would be favoured by adopting Mound’s
suggestions.

Accordingly I yield to the dictates of my fellow thysanopterists in these matters
and recommend that Mound’s requests be adopted.

REFERENCE
(in addition to those given by Mound)

Hoop, J. D. 1915. Hoplothrips corticis: A problem in nomenclature. The
Entomologist 48 : 102-107.

COMMENT ON PROPOSED EMENDATION OF THE CODE TO COVER
DESIGNATION OF TYPES FROM DOUBTFULLY SYNTYPICAL MATERIAL.
Z.N.(S.) 1571
(see volume 23, pages 110-113)

By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.)

I strongly endorse the views expressed by Mr. Boeseman concerning the question
whether the neotype or lectotype definition in the Code should be modified in order
to cope with situations as described by Lockett.

As Boeseman states correctly such cases can be handled quite well by the modi-
fication of the definition of lectotypes as suggested by him. To water down the
definition of neotypes as well as to weaken the provisions for the designation of
neotypes would open the door to the wholesale creation of neotypes.

It must be remembered that the concept of types was exceedingly vague until the
middle of the last century and it was standard practice to add “ typical specimens ”
to the original type series. This was completely consistent with the Aristotelian
concept of “ typical ” adhered to by Linnaeus and his followers.

As a matter of fact, the procedure proposed by Boeseman has on the whole been
standard practice among zoologists for many generations. This, indeed, includes
lectotypes based on so-called Linnaean material.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ON DR. SABROSKY’S OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF
A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PHASIA LATREILLE. Z.N.(S.) 1706
(see volume 23, pages 9-11)

By B. Herting (Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, European Station,
Délémont, Switzerland)

Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky has brought forward a number of important arguments
against my proposal concerning the type-species of Phasia Latr. Unfortunately, I
cannot agree with his conclusions, so I would like to make the following comments
on his statements.

2. It is not true that the genera and species involved are members of the tribe
Phasiini in a restricted sense. Dupuis (1963) has classified them in different tribes,
and his view is supported by the striking biological differences between the two groups;
the crassipennis-complex and its relatives lay hard-shelled flat eggs on the host, whereas
subcoleoptrata and the other Alophora (s. lat.) inject cylindrical eggs into the host by
means of a piercing ovipositor. Dupuis was aware of the fact that the change in the
meaning of Phasia, as adopted by him would create confusion, and he therefore did
not use this name for the two tribes concerned. He calls them Ectophasiini and
Allophorini, though the latter comprises the type-genus Phasia in the sense of Dupuis
and Sabrosky.

3. Sabrosky says (paragraph 5): “‘ The existence of the name on a certain specimen
in the Fabrician collection does not automatically assure us of the entire usage of that
name.” But Thereva subcoleoptrata Fabricius is the type-species of the genus Phasia,
and the statement of Meigen (1824, p. 186) is the only available information on what
Fabricius identified as 7h. subcoleoptrata. The description of subcoleoptrata by
Fabricius will be discussed below (paragraph 7).

4. lagree that the most relevant material should be in the Bosc collection because
Fabricius refers to this. Unfortunately, this material seems to be lost, and there is no
information about its identity. It is, however, possible that Fabricius obtained the
specimen(s) present in his own collection, from Bosc, because he refers only to Bosc
and does not mention other material of subcoleoptrata, even in his latest paper of 1805.
The species to which the material in the Fabrician collection belongs, Phasia
(Ectophasia) rubra Girschner, exists in France and is locally common there.

5. I do not understand how Sabrosky is able to conclude from the facts he
mentions (paragraph 6) that Latreille knew the true subcoleoptrata of Linné. Mr. Cl.
Dupuis who certainly knows more than I about the classic French zoologists, wrote
me in a letter of April 17, 1963: ‘‘ subcoleoptrata n’existe pratiquement pas en France
et Latreille n’a travaillé que sur des textes.”

6. The fact that Meigen (1824, p. 190) cited under subcoleoptrata Linné the
bibliographic references to Fabricius and Latreille cannot be considered as a denial
or withdrawal of what he stated in unmistakable words a few pages before. Fabricius,
of course, referred to the Linnean species in as far as he quoted Linné, but he himself
misidentified it, and Latreille worked from texts only. Moreover, the description by
Fabricius and that by Meigen do not agree.

7. The description of subcoleoptrata by Fabricius is short and does not mention
relevant characters (e.g. wing venation). The words “‘ alae magnae, crassae ” and the
description of wing coloration indicate that it applies to males only. ‘“‘ Abdomen
variat forte sexu colore rufo aut nigro ” thus refers to the male polymorphism, not to
a sexual difference. The material in the Bosc collection, on which this description
was probably based, must therefore have comprised a sufficient number of specimens
to show this polymorphism. But the true subcoleoptrata is a rare species and it is
unlikely that Bosc had in his collection several specimens of this species which does
not exist in France. Meigen (1824, p. 190) described his true subcoleoptrata material
from Sweden as: “‘ abdomine fusco-cinerascente ’’ without indication of variability.
The occurrence of males with ferrugineous (not rufous) abdomen is first mentioned by

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197

Zetterstedt (1844, p. 1246), who had seen further material collected by Dahlbom’
Gyllenhal and Wahlberg. On the other hand, Bosc could easily have gathered series
of polymorphic males of the common crassipennis-complex with abdominal colours
varying from entirely red (rubra Girschner) to entirely black (certain smaller males of
crassipennis F.). The big males with a black median vitta on the ferrugineous abdomen
were described by Fabricius as crassipennis, and Thereva analis Fabr. is the female
sex which exhibits no polymorphism.

8. Theconclusion remains that Fabricius used the name subcoleoptrata erroneously
for certain male varieties of the crassipennis-complex, and there is no valid argument
against designating rubra Girschner as type-species of Phasia Latreille on the basis of
Meigen’s statement about Thereva subcoleoptrata in the Fabrician collection, thus
preserving the preponderant usage of the name Phasia. The changed meaning has,
unfortunately, been used by Dupuis, Sabrosky and Arnaud, but other specialists,
e.g. Draber-Monko (1965) in her monograph of the genus Alophora R.D. (s. lat.),
have not accepted it.

REFERENCES
DRABER-MonkKO, A. 1965. Monographie der palaarktischen Arten der Gattung
* Alophora R.D. (Diptera, Larvaevoridae). Annales Zoologici, 23 : 69-194.
ZETTERSTEDT, J. W. 1844. Diptera Scandinaviae, t. III, 895-1280.

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DECLARATION 42

ABBREVIATIONS IN COMPOUND NAMES: AMENDMENT OF
ARTICLE 26 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

DECLARATION.—Article 26 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(d) Abbreviations in compounds.—An abbreviated word forming part of a
compound name is to be written in full and united with the remainder
of the name.

Examples.—sanctijohannis and sanctaecatharinae, not s. johannis, st. johannis,
sti johannis or any hyphenated variant such as s.-johannis.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1667)

The present case for amendment of Article 26 was submitted to the office of
the Commission by Burt L. Munroe, Jr. (Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.) and Eugene Eisenmann (Depart-
ment of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.)
in October 1964. The application of Munroe and Eisenmann was as follows:

““ Proposal for the Amendment of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature in regard to Abbreviations in Compound Names by adding
a New Subdivision to Article 26; and Request that in the Interim a
Declaration be Issued Pursuant to Article 78 (a).

** Article 26 of the Code provides that names based on compound names,
originally published as two words, must be written as one word without a
hyphen, and Article 32 (c) requires that such names be so corrected. No
provision expressly provides for the correct orthography when one of the words
in the compound name was originally published as an abbreviation. The
common case of this sort is a compound species-group name consisting in part
of the Latin word for saint or holy, sanctus or sancta (usually in the genitive
case: sancti, masculine; sanctae, feminine) preceding the personal name of a
saint. In many names the word sancti was published in the abbreviated form
“s’, ‘st’ or ‘sti’, sometimes with, sometimes without, a period or other punctu-
ation mark. For example, various animals have been described with the specific
name spelled ‘s. johannis’, ‘st. johannis’ or ‘ sti johannis’, all intended as abbrevia-
tions for sancti johannis, and so pronounced and treated in the past. The
question is whether in correcting such compound names into one word, pursuant
to Articles 26 (a) and 32 (c), one writes sanctijohannis in accordance with intent
and usage, or instead creates the novel barbarisms sjohannis, stjohannis, and
stijohannis, depending on the spelling of the original abbreviation.

““ We believe that the correct orthography under the Code is to write out in
full the word originally abbreviated. This is supported by well established
usage prior to the Code, by the function of the abbreviation (which is merely
a symbol of a word, designed to save space or type, not to change the word or
its pronunciation), and by the analogous provisions of the Code applicable to

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199

symbols. Thus Article 26 (b) requires that numerals in compound names be
written out as words; and Article 11 (g) forbids names that ‘include a sign that
cannot be spelled out in Latin.’ The implication is that an abbreviation
(which is really a ‘ sign’ for a Latin word) should be spelled out. The other
possible treatment, adding the letters of the abbreviation to the adjoining word
(after omission of the punctuation mark, if any, and without a hyphen), would
result in an almost unpronounceable and meaningless word, concealing the
identity of the original abbreviated word, and possibly affecting homonymy.
Thus, for example, s. johannis, st. johannis and sti johannis, all understood and
intended to be sancti johannis, would become respectively sjohannis, stjohannis
and stijohannis, seemingly different names. The complications that might result
in regard to homonymy are evident.

“* A definitive ruling is desirable to indicate the correct orthography. Even
before the Code, there was great uncertainty (although nobody added the
letters of the abbreviation to the subsequent word without a hyphen or punctua-
tion intervening). For example, in the case of a well-known North American
subspecies of a holarctic bird of prey, Buteo lagopus, the Roughlegged Hawk or
Buzzard (Aves: Accipitridae), there has been much variation in spelling.
Gmelin in 1788 described the American race as Falco S. Johannis. As early as
1817 Cuvier spelled out the name in full as sancti-johannis. Cuvier’s spelling,
or its variants sancti johannis (without hyphen) and sanctijohannis (one word),
was almost universally used until 1931. Judging from the long synonymy in
Friedmann’s ‘ Birds of North and Middle America ’, vol. 11, pp. 328-336, 1950,
the orthography most often employed was sanctijohannis—which is the form
we believe correct under the Code. In 1931, following a policy of ‘ strict’
adherence to original spelling, the ‘A.O.U. Check-list of North American
Birds’ adopted the form s. johannis, so that the full name, Buteo lagopus s.
johannis suggested a quadrinomial. Some other recent authors have used
s.-johannis. Clearly neither of these abbreviated spellings complies with the
provisions of Article 26 of the Code, requiring one word.

“* Similar variations in the spelling of other (or the same) abbreviations in
compound names are to be found in many of the major zoological classes. In
the interest of uniformity and consistency, a ruling is required clarifying Article
26. Such clarification is likely to get widest publicity if embodied in an addi-
tional subdivision to Article 26 (thus not affecting numbering) by Amendment of
the Code.

““ Meanwhile, pending the action required by the International Congress, it
is urged that, pursuant to Article 78 (a), the International Commission issue as a
Declaration and recommend for adoption at the next Congress, the following
Amendment to the Code:

Article 26 (d) Abbreviations in compounds.—An abbreviated word
forming part of a compound name is to be written out in full and united
with the remainder of the name without any punctuation or hyphen (e.g.,
sanctijohannis, not s. johannis, st. johannis or sti johannis; sanctithomae, not
st: thomae or sancti-thomae; sanctaecrucis, not st. crucis; sanctaecatharinae,
not s catharinae or st. catharinae).”

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The above application was circulated to members of Council and President
Alden H. Miller instructed the Secretary to the Commission to submit it to the
Commission for a vote.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 1 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)13 either for or against the
proposed amendment to Article 26 of the Code as proposed by Munroe and
Eisenmann in the accompanying application. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 1 June 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: Evans,
China, Brinck, Holthuis, Sabrosky, Kraus, Mayr, Hubbs, Simpson, Jaczewski,
Obruchev, Boschma, Lemche, Binder, Uchida, Bonnet, Vokes, Mertens,
Alvarado, Forest.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—five (5): do Amaral, Munroe, Ride, Stoll,
Tortonese.

In returning his Voting Paper Mr. C. W. Sabrosky made the following
comments: ‘‘ I would suggest several editorial changes, partly for brevity and
partly to fit the style of the Code:

“1. omit ‘ out’; it is redundant in the expression ‘ written in full’.

“2. Isuggest omission of the words ‘ without any punctuation or hyphen’.
The combination of ‘ united with the remainder of the name’ and examples of
what not to use should make the words unnecessary.

**3. examples: I believe there are too many examples, and too much
repetition of the ‘st.’ example. The sancti-thomae example should not be
used in any case; it is not an abbreviation and is covered elsewhere. I suggest
something like this: (e.g., sanctijohannis and sanctaecatharinae, not s. johannis,
st. johannis, sti johannis or any hyphenated variant such as s.-johannis).”

Mr. Sabrosky’s suggestions have been adopted.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)13 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission is truly recorded in the present Declaration 42.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

13 June 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201

OPINION 784

CARDINALIS BONAPARTE, 1838 (AVES): VALIDATED UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Cardinalis
Jarocki, 1821, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority
and the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838 (gender : masculine),
type-species, by designation by Gray, 1840, Cardinalis virginianus Bonaparte,
1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with
the Name Number 1728.

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) cardinalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Loxia cardinalis

(type-species of Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838) (Name No. 2160);
(b) sinuatus Bonaparte, 1838, as published in the binomen Cardinalis
sinuatus (Name No. 2161).

(4) The family-group name CARDINALINAE Sushkin, 1925 (type-genus
Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 415.

(5) The generic name Cardinalis Jarocki, 1821 (as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1815.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1608)

The present case was one of a number of cases submitted to the office of the
Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the
International Ornithological Congress (Chairman: Finn Salomonsen) in May
1958. A revised proposal by Prof. Ernst Mayr, Dr. J. T. Marshall, Jr., and
Dr. Robert K. Selander was sent to the printer on 17 October 1963 and was
published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 133-136. Public
Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in
the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications
(Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to twelve ornitho-
logical serials. The application was supported by Professor Walter Bock, Dr.
Jean Dorst, Miss B. P. Hall (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 416), Professor G.
Niethammer and Dr. Allan R. Phillips.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 10 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)14 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 135-136. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 10 June 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Boschma, Obruchev, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Simpson, Uchida,

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Bonnet, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Vokes, Forest, Alvarado, Kraus, Mertens,
Brinck, Evans, do Amaral.

Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, ide

Dr. N. R. Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. In returning his negative
vote Mr. Sabrosky made the following statement: “‘I am astonished that
advocates of usage wish to turn the clock back to Cardinalis, in view of the well
established usage of the admittedly ‘ widely used name’ Richmondena. If
predominant and wide-spread usage is important, then it would be more
reasonable to suppress Pyrrhuloxia in favour of Richmondena, which is adopted
in such standard and widely quoted and followed works as the Check List of the
American Ornithologists’ Union (last two editions, 1931, 1957) and other-major
works (paragraph 7 of the Mayr-Marshall-Selander application).

“Tt is interesting to note that the majority vote for Cardinalis in the 3-1 vote
of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress consisted of three Europeans, against the minority of
one American (the late A. H. Miller). Inasmuch as the cardinals are American
birds, it would seem appropriate, and would have been more relevant, to have
had a vote of the Nomenclatural Committee of the American Ornithologists’
Union, or of the Union’s membership. The application does not necessarily
represent a majority view of American ornithologists. For example, I am
informed by Dr. Alexander Wetmore, distinguished ornithologist, former
president of the International Ornithological Congress, and editor of the last
AOU Check List, that he is strongly opposed to the proposal to go back to
Cardinalis.

“Incidentally, Dr. Wetmore tells me also that he considers it premature to
conclude that Richmondena and Pyrrhuloxia are congeneric despite the positive
statements of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the application. A brief examination of
the osteology suggests that there may be fundamental differences. The Mayr
and Amadon (1951) conclusion of congeneric status was not accepted for the
1957 Check List.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
CARDINALINAE Sushkin, 1925, Auk 42 : 260
Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838, Proc. zool. Soc. London 1837 : 111
Cardinalis Jarocki, 1821, Zoologiia 2 : 133
cardinalis, Loxia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 172
sinuatus, Cardinalis, Bonaparte, 1838, Proc. zool. Soc. London 1837 : 111

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838: Gray, 1840, List Genera Birds: 43

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)14 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203

under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 784.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

14 June 1966

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 785

PSEUDOSQUILLA DANA, 1852, AND GONODACTYLUS BERTHOLD,
1827 (CRUSTACEA, STOMATOPODA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE-
SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the generic name Smerdis Leach, 1817, is hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy;

(b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Pseudosquilla
Dana, 1852, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and
the nominal species Squilla ciliata Fabricius, 1787, is hereby designated
to be the type-species of that genus;

(c) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Gonodactylus
Berthold, 1827, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside,
and the nominal species Squilla chiragra Fabricius, 1781, is hereby
designated to be the type-species of that genus.

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) Coronida Brooks, 1886 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation
by Balss, 1938, Squilla bradyi A. Milne Edwards, 1869 (Name No.
1729);

(b) Coronis Desmarest, (September) 1823 (gender : feminine), type-species,
by subsequent monotypy, Coronis scolopendra Latreille, 1828 (Name
No. 1730);

(c) Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Squilla chiragra
Fabricius, 1781 (Name No. 1731);

(d) Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono-
typy, Gonodactylus styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Name No.
1732);

(e) Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Squilla ciliata Fabricius,
1787 (Name No. 1733).

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of

Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:

(a) bradyi A. Milne Edwards, 1869, as published in the binomen Squilla
bradyi (type-species of Coronida Brooks, 1886) (Name No. 2162);

(b) chiragra Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Squilla chiragra
(type-species of Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827) (Name No. 2163);

(c) ciliata Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Squilla ciliata
(type-species of Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852) (Name No. 2164);

(d) ensiger Owen, 1832, as published in the binomen Gonodactylus ensiger
(Name No. 2165);

(e) scolopendra Latreille, 1828, as published in the binomen Coronis scolo-
pendra (type-species of Coronis Desmarest, 1823) (Name No. 2166).

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :
(a) Coroniderichthus Hansen, 1895 (a junior objective synonym of Coronida
Brooks, 1886) (Name No. 1816);

(b) Coronis Hiibner, (21 December) 1823 (a junior homonym of Coronis
Desmarest, 1823) (Name No. 1817);

(d) Pseuderichthus Brooks, (May) 1886 (a junior objective synonym of
Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852) (Name No. 1819);

(e) Pseudosquille Eydoux & Souleyet, 1842 (a vernacular (French) name)
(Name No. 1820);

(f) Pseuderichthus Dames, (after September) 1886 (a junior homonym of
Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886) (Name No. 1821);

(g) Alimerichthus Claus, 1871 (a junior homonym of Alimerichthus Guérin,
1855) (Name No. 1822);

(h) Smerdis Leach, 1817 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a)
above) (Name No. 1823);

(i) Coronis Gloger, 1827 (a junior homonym of Coronis Desmarest, 1823)
(Name No. 1824).

(5) The family-group name SQUILLIDAE (correction of SQUILLARES) Latreille,
[1802-1803] (type-genus Squilla Fabricius, 1787) is hereby placed on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 416.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1609)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. L. B.
Holthuis and Dr. Raymond B. Manning in November 1963. The application
was sent to the printer on 17 December 1963 and was published on 23 April
1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 - 137-143. Public Notice of the possible use of
the plenary powers in the Present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b:
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial.

In a letter to the Secretary Professor Ernst Mayr suggested that Coronis
Gloger, 1827 (Aves) should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected Names
as a junior homonym of Coronis Desmarest, 1823. Gloger’s name is a junior
synonym of Coracina Vieillot, 1816. No other comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)15 either for or against the
Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 141-143 together with the addition
to the Official Index of Coronis Gloger, 1827. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 10 June 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Boschma, Jaczewski, Obruchey, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Simpson,

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Uchida, Bonnet, Tortonese, Vokes, Forest, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Kraus, Mertens,
Brinck, Evans, do Amaral.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Dr. N. R. Stoll returned a late affirmative vote.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Alimerichthus Claus, 1871, Abh. Ges. Wiss. Géttingen 16 : 146
bradyi, Squilla, A. Milne Edwards, 1869, in De Folin & Périer, Fonds de la
Mer 1: 137
chiragra, Squilla, Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 515
ciliata, Squilla, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Ins. 1 : 333
Coronida Brooks, 1886, John Hopkins Univ. Circ. 5(49) : 84
Coroniderichthus Hansen, 1895, Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. 2(G) (c) : 81, 83, 98,
102
Coronis Desmarest, 1823, Dict. Sci. nat. 28 : 345
Coronis Gloger, 1827, Notizen (Froriep) 16 : 277
Coronis Hiibner, 1823, Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (17) : 265
ensiger, Gonodactylus, Owen, 1832, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1832 : 6
Gonerichthus Brooks, 1886, John Hopkins Univ. Circ. 5(49) : 83
Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827, in Latreille, Natiirl. Fam. Thierr. : 271
Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895, Ergebn. Plankton-Exped. 2(G) (c) : 72
Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886, John Hopkins Univ. Circ. 5(49) : 83
Pseuderichthus Dames, 1886, Zeitschr. Deutsch. geol. Ges. 38 : 571
Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13 : 615, 621
Pseudosquille Eydoux & Souleyet, 1842, Voy. Bonite (Zool.) 1(2) : 263
scolopendra, Coronis, Latreille, 1828, Ency. méth. 10 (Ins.): 474
Smerdis Leach, 1817, Tuckey’s Narrat. Exped. River Zaire (app. 4): unnumbered
plate
SQUILLIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 36
The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Coronida Brooks, 1886: Balss, 1938, Bronn’s Klassen Ord. Tierr. 5(1) (6)
(2): 130.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)15 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 785.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

14 June 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207

OPINION 786

GRISELDA RADICANA HEINRICH, 1923 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA):
VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name Griselda
radicana Heinrich, 1923, is hereby made available, despite the fact that this was
a misidentification and that Heinrich had no intention of publishing a new name,
and that species is hereby designated to be the type-species of Griselda Heinrich,
1923.

(2) The generic name Griselda Heinrich, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Griselda radicana
Heinrich, 1923, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 1734.

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :

(a) radicana Heinrich, 1923, as published in the binomen Griselda radicana

(type-species of Griselda Heinrich, 1923) (Name No. 2167);
(b) radicana Walsingham, 1879, as published in the binomen Paedisca
radicana (Name No. 2168).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1612)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Nicholas S. Obraztsov in September 1963. The application was sent to the
printer on 17 December 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 144-145. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers
in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin, as well as to the
other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)16 either for or against the
Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21: 145. At the close of the pre-
scribed voting period on 10 June 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Boschma, Obruchev, Lemche,* Mayr, Binder, Uchida, Bonnet,
Jaczewski, Tortonese, Vokes, Forest, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Kraus, Mertens,
Evans.

Negative votes—two (2): Simpson,* do Amaral.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Prof. P. Brinck and Dr. N. R. Stoll returned late affirmative votes. The
following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes.

* A qualified vote. See below.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (16.iii.66): “‘ Heinrich’s (1923) use of Paedisca radicana
Walsingham, 1879, prevents that name from falling under the definition of a
nomen oblitum.”

Dr. Henning Lemche (4.iv.66): “‘ The reasons given for reviving a forgotten
name (radicana Walsingham) are quite insufficient. Their acceptance would
undermine the whole idea of rejecting nomina oblita.”

Prof. G. G. Simpson (18.iv.66): “* This involves two proposals, which should
not have been combined in one vote. I favour (1) (2) and (3) (a) but oppose
(3) (b). On evidence submitted, placing this nomen oblitum on the Official List
would be counter to stability of current nomenclature.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Griselda Heinrich, 1923, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 123 : 186, pl. 7, fig. 36, pl. 49,
fig. 329
radicana, Griselda, Heinrich, 1923, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 123 : 186, pl. 7, fig. 36,
pl. 49, fig. 329
radicana, Paedisca, Walsingham, 1879, J/lustr. Lepid. Heter. Brit. Mus. 4 : 53,
pl. 72, fig. 5.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)16 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 786.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

15 June 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209

OPINION 787

BAETIS (LEACH, 1815] (INSECTA, EPHEMEROPTERA): DESIGNATION
OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TOGETHER
WITH SUPPRESSION OF EPHEMERA BIOCULATA LINNAEUS, 1758

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Baetis [Leach, 1815]
made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the nominal
species Ephemera fuscata Linnaeus, 1761, is hereby designated to be the
type of that genus;

(b) the specific name bioculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Ephemera bioculata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Baetis [Leach, 1815] (gender : masculine), type-species,
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above, Ephemera fuscata
Linnaeus, 1761, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 1735.

(3) The specific name fuscata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Ephemera fuscata, as interpreted by the male neotype specimen designated by
Miiller-Liebenau, 1965 (type-species of Baetis [Leach, 1815]) is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2169.

(4) The specific name bioculata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Ephemera bioculata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 876.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1620)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. D. E.
Kimmins in December 1963. Mr. Kimmins’ application was sent to the printer
on 17 December 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 146-147. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 :
184) and to seven entomological serials.

The application was supported by Prof. P. Brinck and Dr. Ingrid Miiller-
Liebenau (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 119-122, pls. 1-4) who submitted additional
proposals concerning the suppression under the plenary powers of Ephemera
bioculata Linnaeus, 1758, and designated a neotype for Ephemera fuscata
Linnaeus, 1761.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 10 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)17 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 146-147; 22: 119. At the close
of the prescribed voting period on 10 June 1966 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Boschma, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Lemche, Mayr, Binder, Simpson,
Uchida, Bonnet, Tortonese, Vokes, Forest, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Kraus,*
Mertens,* Brinck, Evans, do Amaral.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Dr. N. R. Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. In returning their votes two
Commissioners made comments as follows:

Dr. O. Kraus (6.vi.66): I only vote for the original proposal, but I regret that
I must vote against the supplement application published in vol. 22 of the
Bulletin: on page 122 the Commission is asked to agree with the selection of two
neotypes for one and the same species!

Prof. Dr. R. Mertens (6.vi.66): I vote for the original proposal, not for the
supplementary application, where the Commission is asked to agree with the
selection of two neotypes for the same species.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Baetis {[Leach, 1815], in Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 9 : 137
bioculata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 577
fuscata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed. 2) : 376

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)17 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 787.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

15 June 1966

* An affirmative vote in part only. See below.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211

OPINION 788

MEGALOPTA SMITH, 1853 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all desi gnations of type-species for
the nominal genus Megalopta Smith, 1853, made prior to the present Ruling are
hereby set aside, and the nominal species Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853, is hereby
designated to be the type-species of that genus.
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :
(a) Megalopta Smith, 1853 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation
under the plenary powers in (1) above, Megalopta idalia Smith, 1853
(Name No. 1736);

(b) Reepenia Friese, 1909 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy,
Nomia variabilis Friese, 1909 (Name No. 1737).

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified :

(a) idalia Smith, 1853, as published in the binomen Megalopta idalia (type-

species of Megalopta Smith, 1853) (Name No. 2170);
(b) variabilis Friese, 1909, as published in the binomen Nomia variabilis
(type-species of Reepenia Friese, 1909) (Name No. 2171).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1624)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Prof.
Charles D. Michener and J. S. Moure, C.M.F., in December 1963. The applica-
tion was sent to the printer on 17 December 1963 and was published on 23 April
1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 148-149. Public Notice of the possible use of
the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin
as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was
received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 10 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)18 either for or against the
proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 148-149. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 10 June 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China,
Holthuis, Boschma, Obruchey, Lemche, Jaczewski, Mayr, Binder, Simpson,
Uchida, Bonnet, Tortonese, Vokes, Forest, Alvarado, Sabrosky, Kraus,
Mertens, Evans, do Amaral.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Commissioners Brinck and Stoll returned late affirmative votes.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
idalia, Megalopta, Smith, 1853, Cat. hymenopt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 1 : 83
Megalopta Smith, 1853, Cat. hymenopt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 1 : 83
Reepenia Friese, 1909, Ann. Mus. nat. Hist. Hung. 7 : 205
variabilis, Nomia, Friese, 1909, Ann. Mus. nat. Hist. Hung. 7 : 205

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)18 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 788.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

15 June 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213

OPINION 789

REJECTION OF THE PAMPHLET BY J. HUBNER, 1808, ENTITLED
ERSTE ZUTRAGE ZUR SAMMLUNG EXOTISCHER
SCHMETTERLINGE

RULING.—(1) It is hereby Ruled that the incomplete pamphlet of Jacob
Hiibner, dated 1808, entitled Erste Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetter-
linge, has not been published within the meaning of Article 8 of the Code, and
therefore that neither the generic nor the specific names used in that pamphlet
are available for nomenclatorial purposes.

(2) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal
genus Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819], made prior to the present Ruling are hereby
set aside, and the nominal species Phalaena icasia Cramer, 1777, is hereby
designated to be the type of that genus.

(3) The generic name Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819] (gender : neuter), type-
species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Phalaena icasia
Cramer, 1777, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 1738.

(4) The specific name icasia Cramer, 1777, as published in the binomen
Phalaena icasia (type-species of Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819]) is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2172.

(5) The following entry is hereby made on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 72:
Hubner, J., 1808. Erste Zutrége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (re-

jected for nomenclatorial purposes because not properly published in the

manner prescribed by Article 8 of the Code).

(6) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Achatia Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1825);

(b) Agrotis Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1826);

(d) Ascalapha Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomencla-
torial purposes) (Name No. 1828);

(e) Blephara Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1829);

(f) Blepharum Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomencla-
torial purposes) (Name No. 1830);

(g) Blepharidia Piingeler, 1900 (a junior homonym of Blepharidia Hiibner,
1822) (Name No. 1831);

(h) Chrysaor Hiibner, [1809] (a junior homonym of Chrysaor Montfort,
1808) (Name No. 1832);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

214

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(i) Chrysaor Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1833);
(j) Diphthera Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No, 1834);
(k) Diphthera Sluiter, 1888 (a junior homonym of Diphthera Hiibner, [1809])
(Name No. 1835);
(1) Elasmion Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1836);
(m) Elasmia Hiibner, 1822 (an incorrect original spelling for Elasmion
Hiibner, 1822) (Name No. 1837);
(n) Epirrita Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1838);
(0) Erastria Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1839);
(p) Erastria Ochsenheimer, 1816 (a junior homonym of Erastria Hiibner,
[1813]) (Name No. 1840);
(q) Erpyzon Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1841);
(r) Euclidia Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1842);
(s) Glaucopis Fabricius, 1807 (a junior homonym of G/aucopis Gmelin, 1788)
(Name No. 1843);
(t) Glaucopis Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1844);
(u) Glaucopis Bonaparte, 1854 (a junior homonym of G/aucopis Gmelin,
1788) (Name No. 1845);
(v) Gloee Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1846);
(w) Glaea Curtis, 1829 (an incorrect spelling for Gloia Hiibner, 1822) (Name
No. 1847);
(x) Hamadryas Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomencla-
torial purposes) (Name No. 1848);
(y) Hamadryas Mikan, 1821 (a junior homonym of Hamadryas Hubner,
[1806]) (Name No. 1849);
(z) Hamadryas Boisduval, 1832 (a junior homonym of Hamadryas Hubner,
[1806]) (Name No. 1850);
(aa) Hamadryas Cantor, 1838 (a junior homonym of Hamadryas Hibner,
[1806]) (Name No. 1851);
(bb) Hamadryas Lesson, 1840 (a junior homonym of Hamadryas Hibner,
[1806]) (Name No. 1852);
(cc) Hamadryas Albers, 1850 (a junior homonym of Hamadryas Hubner,
[1806]) (Name No. 1853);
(dd) Hamadryas Clemens, 1864 (a junior homonym of Hamadryas Hiibner,
[1806]) (Name No. 1854);
(ee) Heliaca Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1855);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215

(ff) Heliaca Herrich-Schaffer, [1851] (a junior homonym of Heliaca Hiibner,
1822) (Name No. 1856);
(gg) Heliothis Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1857);
(hh) Hipocrita Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1858);
(ii) Hipocrita Hiibner, [1810] (an incorrect spelling for Hypocrita Hiibner,
[1807]) (Name No. 1859);
(jj) Hypocrita Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1860);
(kk) Hypocrita Saussure, 1868 (a junior homonym of Hypocrita Hiibner,
[1807]) (Name No. 1861);
(ll) Hypercompe Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes) (Name No. 1862);
(mm) Jdia Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1863);
(nn) Jdia Lamouroux, 1816 (a junior homonym of J/dia Hiibner, [1813])
(Name No. 1864);
(oo) Idia Wiedemann, 1820 (a junior homonym of /dia Hiibner, [1813])(Name
No. 1865);
(pp) Idia Fieber, 1866 (a junior homonym of /dia Hiibner, [1813]) (Name
No. 1866);
(qq) Jaspidia Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1867);
(rr) Mancipium Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomencla-
torial purposes) (Name No. 1868);
(ss) Najas Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1869);
(tt) Nereis Hiibner, [1806] (a junior homonym of Nereis Linnaeus, 1758)
(Name No. 1870);
(uu) Nereis Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1871);
(vv) Nereis Conrad, 1860 (a junior homonym of Nereis Linnaeus, 1758)
(Name No. 1872);
(ww) Nereis Warren, 1908 (a junior homonym of Nereis Linnaeus, 1758)
(Name No. 1873);
(xx) Oreas Hiibner, [1807] (a junior objective synonym of Haetera Fabricius
1807) (Name No. 1874);
(yy) Oreas Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1875);
(zz) Oreas Montfort, 1808 (a junior homonym of Oreas Hiibner, [1807])
(Name No. 1876);
(aaa) Oreas Desmarest, 1822 (a junior homonym of Oreas Hiibner, [1807])
(Name No. 1877);
(bbb) Oreas Agassiz, 1846 (a junior homonym of Oreas Hiibner, [1807])
(Name No. 1878);

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(ccc) Palpita Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1879);
(ddd) Petrophora Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1880);
(eee) Ptilodon Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1881);
(fff) Prophyla Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1882);
(ggg) Rusticus Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1883);
(hhh) Sphecomorpha Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes) (Name No. 1884);
(iii) Terpne Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1885);
(jij) Tetrachila Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1886);
(kkk) Tribonophora Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomen-
clatorial purposes) (Name No. 1887);
(lll) Xanthia Hiibner, 1808 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes) (Name No. 1888);
(mmm) Xanthia Fairmaire, 1893 (a junior homonym of Xanthia Ochsenheimer,
1816) (Name No. 1889).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1611)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. I.
W. B. Nye in July 1963. Dr. Nye’s application was sent to the printer on 17
October 1963 and was published on 25 March 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 :
58-80. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the designa-
tion of a type-species for Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819], was given in the same part
of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution
Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials.

The proposals were supported by Prof. M. Beier, Dr. D. F. Hardwick, Dr.
E. L. Todd, Dr. I. F. B. Common (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 333-335), Mr. W.
H. T. Tams (ibid. 22 : 137-8), Mr. A. Watson, Dr. H. Inoue, Mr. R. J. Collins
and Mr. D. S. Fletcher. Objections were received from Dr. Ch. Boursin (ibid.
21 : 333), Dr. E. Berio (ibid. 22 : 154-5, 341-2), Dr. L. Sheljuzhko, Dr. W.
Forster, Dr. H. Reisser, Dr. F. Kasy and Dr. H. J. Hannemann.

In December 1965 Dr. Nye provided a correction to his application as
follows: “‘There is a use of Jdia by Hiibner, [1813], which antedates that by
Lamouroux, 1816. The application should therefore be amended as follows:

(u) Jdia Hiibner [1806], Tentamen: 2. Used in a work rejected for nomen-

clatorial purposes in Opinions 97 and 278.

Idia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr.: 5, nomen nudum until [1809]-[1813],
Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : fig. 131-132. Used in an unpublished
work and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217

Idia Hiibner [1813], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [212] (gender : feminine)
(type-species, by monotypy: Noctua aemula [Denis & Schiffermiiller]
[1775], Ankiindung Syst. Werkes Schmett. Wien: 314) (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera).

To be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

Idia Lamouroux, 1816, Hist. Polyp.: 199. A junior homonym of Jdia
Hiibner [1813] and therefore to be placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.”

At the request of Professor Mayr, Dr. Nye listed the homonyms of the names
dealt with in his applications:
(d) Ascalapha Anderson, 1872, as cited in Neave is an incorrect spelling of
Ascalaphia Geoffroy, 1837, and not a homonym of Ascalapha Hibner.
(f) Blepharum Thomson, 1878 (Coleoptera)—has been replaced by Eulepto-
dema Obenberger, 1928.

Blepharidia Piingeler, 1900 (Lepidoptera)—a junior homonym of
Blepharidia Hiibner—to be placed on the Official Index.

(h) Diphthera Sluiter, 1888 (Coelenterata)—to be placed on the Official Index.

(k) Erastria Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Lepidoptera)—to be placed on the Official
Index.

(n) Glaucopis Fabricius, 1807—already included in application.

Glaucopis Bonaparte, 1854 (Aves)—to be placed on the Official Index.

(p) Hamadryas Mikan, 1821 (Lepidoptera); Hamadryas Boisduval, 1832
(Lepidoptera); Hamadryas Cantor, 1838 (Reptilia); Hamadryas
Lesson, 1840 (Mammalia); Hamadryas Albers, 1850 (Mollusca);
Hamadryas Clemens, 1864 (Lepidoptera)—all junior homonyms and to
be placed on the Official Index.

(q) Heliaca Herrich-Schaffer, [1851] (Lepidoptera)—to be placed on the
Official Index.

(s) Hypocrita Saussure, 1868 (Orthoptera)—to be placed on the Official
Index.

(u) Idia Wiedemann, 1820 (Diptera); Jdia Fieber, 1866 (Hemiptera)—to be
placed on the Official Index.

(v) Jaspidia Boisduval, 1840, cited by Neave is the same generic concept as
Jaspidia Hiibner, 1822.

(z) Nereis Conrad, 1860 (Mollusca); Nereis Warren, 1908 (Lepidoptera)—
to be placed on the Official Index.

(aa) Oreas Montfort, 1808 (Protozoa); Oreas Desmarest, 1822 (Mammalia);
Oreas Agassiz, 1846 (Aves); Oreas Felder, 1865 (Lepidoptera)—all to
be placed on the Official Index.

Haetera Doubleday, 1845, cited by Neave is the same generic concept as
Haetera Fabricius, 1807.

(ll) Xanthia Fairmaire, 1893 (Coleoptera)—-to be placed on the Official Index.
The above information was given to Commissioners at the time of voting.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 10 March 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)21 either for or against

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

proposals in para. 1(a)-(c) in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 58, with the addition to
the Official Index of certain junior homonyms as set out on a sheet attached to
the Voting Paper (see above). At the close of the prescribed voting period on
10 June 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—seventeen (17), received in the following order: China,
Boschma, Lemche,* Mayr, Binder,* Simpson, Uchida, Obruchev, Bonnet,
Jaczewski, Vokes, Forest, Alvarado, Kraus, Mertens, Evans, do Amaral.

Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Tortonese, Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Munroe, Ride.

Commissioners Brinck and Stoll returned late affirmative votes. The
following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (16.iii.66): “‘ In voting against the proposal of Dr. Nye I
do so because Dr. Nye and others have only brought forward some arguments in
favour of considering Hiibner’s (1808) pamphlet ‘ Erste Zutrdge . . .’ a printer’s
proof and therefore not a publication. However, all these arguments are
rather feeble and certainly no definite proof has been given for their contention.
In this way there will always remain dispute about the fact whether or not this
publication was legally put on the Index. Dr. Nye’s objective would have been
more satisfactory, and much more easily attained, had he simply requested the
suppression of the pamphlet under the plenary powers of the Commission.”

Dr. H. Lemche (4.iv.66): “‘ In the past, much confusion has arisen from gross
adoption of names not sufficiently scrutinized before being proposed. In the
present case, even a number of names relating to other phyla are proposed for
addition to the Official List and Index, without a single word on the interesting
question as to whether these names are wanted or not by the specialists in these
groups.”

Dr. G. G. Simpson (18.iv.66): ‘‘ The great amount of labour put into this
case by Berio is to be appreciated, but his historical and legalistic points seem
to me to be less important than the always overriding consideration of stability.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.vi.66): “‘ It does not appear to me to be conclusively
proved that the Erste Zutrdge was not published, and as long as the possibility
exists that it might have been published I cannot in good conscience vote to
regard it as unpublished.

‘“* Whether it should be suppressed is a different question. Opinion is
divided, obviously, and a decision either way will upset some usage. Equally
obviously, divided usage does not contribute to stability and universality, and
some action is imperative. I am informed that more upsetting and far reaching
changes would be required by acceptance of the Erste Zutrdge than by its
rejection. Accordingly I would support use of the plenary powers to suppress
it, to avoid what Hardwick has aptly described as ‘ disruptive changes in a
presently fairly stable interpretation of names.’

“1 agree strongly with the comment of Todd on (1) (b) (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 335). En masse placement of names on Official Lists may unwittingly
borrow trouble for the future, even though Nye’s work on these names appears
to be admirably thorough and careful.”

* An affirmative vote in part only. See below.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219

Dr. P. Brinck (14.vi.66): ““ Dr. Nye’s detailed examination of the case means
a stable basis for a decision. In spite of the fact that I was impressed by some
of the objections presented in the Bulletin, | feel a positive decision as proposed
by Dr. Nye is the better way.”
Dr. E. Binder (18.iv.66): ‘‘ I vote in favour of 1(a) and (c) and against 1(b).”’
Since a number of Commissioners declared themselves against the addition
of names to the Official List in the present case, it was decided, in consultation
with Dr. Nye, that that part of his application should be withdrawn. The name
of the genus Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819], the type-species of which has been
designated by the Commission under the plenary powers, however, must be
placed on the List.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Achatia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4, 6
Agrotis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Apatele Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5
Ascalapha Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4-6
Blephara Hibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Blepharidia Piingeler, 1900, Dtsch. ent. Z. 13 : 122
Blepharum Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Chrysaor Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Chrysaor Hiibner, [1809], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [161]
Diphthera Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Diphthera Sluiter, 1888, Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 48 : 233
Elasmia Hiibner, 1822, Syst.-alph. Verz.: 62
Elasmion Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett.: 6
Epirrita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Erastria Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5
Erastria Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa 4 : 92
Erpyzon Hibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Sammil. exot. Schmett.: 4, 5
Euclidia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 3
Glaea Curtis, 1829, Brit. Ent. 6 : 268
Glaucopis Bonaparte, 1854, Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (Zool.) (4) 1 (3) : 137
Glaucopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 289
Glaucopis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 3, 4, 5, 6
Gloee Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4, 5
Hamadryas Albers, 1850, Die Heliceen : 155
Hamadryas Boisduval, 1832, in d’Urville, Voy. “* Astrolabe’, Ent. 1: 91
Hamadryas Cantor, 1838, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 6 : 73
Hamadryas Clemens, 1864, Proc. ent. Soc. Philad. 2 : 422
Hamadryas Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Hamadryas Lesson, 1840, Spec. Mamm.: 107
Hamadryas Mikan, 1821, Del. Brasil.: expl. pl. [2]
Heliaca Herrich-Schiaffer, [1851], Syst. Bearbeit. Schmett. Europ. 2 : 370
Heliaca Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5
Heliothis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Hipocrita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett.: 4, 5
Hipocrita Hiibner, [1810], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [189]
Hypocrita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Hypocrita Saussure, 1868, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 20 : 99
Hypercompe Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 3
Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [191]
icasia, Phalaena, Cramer, 1777, Uitl. Kapellen 2 : 130, pl. 181, fig. E
Idia Fieber, 1866, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 16 : 509

Idia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett.: 5

Idia Lamouroux, 1816, Hist. Polyp.: 199

Idia Wiedemann, 1820, Nov. Dipt. Gen.: 21

Jaspidia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett.: 4, 5
Mancipium Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4, 5
Najas Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 3

Nereis Conrad, 1860, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. (2) 4 : 289

Nereis Hiibner, [1806], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [1], [2], [5-8], [12], [15]
Nereis Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4-6
Nereis Warren, 1908, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 34 (1601): 110

Oreas Agassiz, 1846, Nomencl. zool. Index Univ.

Oreas Desmarest, 1822, Ency. méth. (Mamm.) 2 : 471

Oreas Hiibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [82]

Oreas Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett. : 3

Oreas Montfort, 1808, Conch. syst. Class. méth. Coquilles 1 : 94
Palpita Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5, 6
Petrophora Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Sammi. exot. Schmett.: 5
Prophyla Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Ptilodon Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Rusticus Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5, 6
Sphecomorpha Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4
Terpne Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 6
Tetrachila Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5
Tribonophora Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 5
Xanthia Fairmaire, 1893, Ann. Soc. ent. France 62 : 31

Xanthia Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutr. Samml. exot. Schmett.: 4

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)21 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 789.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

22 June 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221

OPINION 790

AXOPORA MILNE EDWARDS & HAIME, [1850] (HYDROZOA):
VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Holaraea Milne
Edwards & Haime, 1849, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850] (gender :
feminine), type-species, by original designation, Geodia pyriformis Michelin,
[1847], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with
the Name Number 1739.

(3) The specific name pyriformis Michelin, [1847], as published in the bino-
men Geodia pyriformis (type-species of Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime,
[1850]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with
the Name Number 2173.

(4) The family-group name AxoporIDAE Boschma, 1951 (type-genus: Axopora
Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 417.

(5) The generic name Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849 (as suppressed
under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1890.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1610)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor
H. Boschma in September 1963. Dr. Boschma’s application was sent to the
printer on 17 December 1963 and was published on 7th August 1964 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 225. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as
to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184). No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 May 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)24 either for or against the proposals
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 225. At the close of the prescribed Voting
Period on 3 August 1966 the state of the Voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China,
Simpson, Mayr, Holthuis, Bonnet, Boschma, Brinck, Vokes, Lemche, Uchida,
Jaczewski, Tortonese, Sabrosky, do Amaral, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado,
Munroe, Ride, Stoll, Kraus, Evans, Binder,

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Obruchev.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850], Mon. Brit. foss. Corals: lix
AXOPORIDAE Boschma, 1951, Zool. Verh., Leiden 13 : 2

Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849, C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 29 : 259
pyriformis, Geodia, Michelin, [847], Iconogr. zoophyt.: 178.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)24 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 790.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

15 August 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223

OPINION 791

PARATYLENCAHUS ELACHISTUS STEINER, 1949 (NEMATODA):
REJECTION OF A NEOTYPE SPECIMEN

RULING.—(1) The specimen of Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949,
designated by Tarjan, 1960, as neotype of that species, is hereby set aside.

(2) The specific name elachistus Steiner, 1949, as published in the binomen
Paratylenchus elachistus, as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Tarjan &
Golden, 1964, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 2174.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1615)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. A. C.
Tarjan and Dr. A. M. Golden in August 1963. The application was sent to the
printer on 28 February 1964 and was published on 7 August 1964 in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 226. The application was supported by Dr. R. H. Mulvey.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 May 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)25 either for or against the proposals
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 226. At the close of the prescribed Voting
Period on 3 August 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Obruchev.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
Voting Papers:

Prof. Ernst Mayr (10.v.66): “‘ This proves again how dangerous it is to
designate neotypes needlessly. It is very doubtful that the original neotype
designation of Tarjan 1960 met the rigorous conditions of Art. 75.”

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (1.vii.66): “‘ This case may emphasize a point: Was the
neotype really ‘ necessary ’ (Code, 75a) in the first place? ”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official
List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
elachistus, Paratylenchus, Steiner, 1949, Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Fla. (1942) 4-B :
72-117
The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for a
nominal species concerned in the present Ruling:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

For Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949: Tarjan & Golden, 1964, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 226

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)25 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion, is truly recorded in the Present Opinion No. 791.

G. OWEN EVANS W.E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

15 August 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225

OPINION 792

CERTHIA CHRYSOTIS LATHAM, 1801 (AVES): SUPPRESSED UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name chrysotis
Latham, 1801, as published in the binomen Certhia chrysotis, is hereby sup-
pressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy.

(2) The specific name chrysotis Latham, 1801, as published in the binomen
Certhia chrysotis (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 877.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1653)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by the
Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature of the International
Ornithological Congress in May 1964. The application was sent to the printer
on 7 July 1964 and was published on 7 August 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 240. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed
serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to
twelve ornithological serials. No comments were received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 May 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)27 either for or against the proposals
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 240. At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 3 August 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China,
Simpson, Mayr, Holthuis, Bonnet, Boschma, Brinck, Vokes, Lemche, Uchida,
Jaczewski, Tortonese, do Amaral, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Munroe, Ride,
Stoll, Kraus, Evans, Binder.

Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Obruchev.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following is the original reference for a specific name placed on the
Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
chrysotis, Certhia, Latham, 1801, Index Ornith., Suppl.: 38.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)27 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 792.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

16 August 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227

OPINION 793

NANA SCHUMACHER, 1817 (GASTROPODA):
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Nana Schu-
macher, 1817, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but
not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Cyclope Risso, 1826 (gender : feminine), type-species,
by designation by Keen, 1964, Cyclope neritoidea Risso, 1826 is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1740.

(3) The specific name neriteum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Buccinum neriteum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2175.

(4) The generic name Nana Schumacher, 1817 (as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1891.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1622)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Myra
Keen in December 1963. Dr. Keen’s application was sent to the printer on
28 February 1964 and was published on 16 October 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 303-304. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 :
184) and to two specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. Allyn
G. Smith.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 3 May 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)28 either for or against the proposals
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 303-304. At the close of the prescribed
voting period on 3 August 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Obruchev.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Cyclope Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Prod. Europ. mérid. 4 : 170, 271
Nana Schumacher, 1817, Essai nouv. Syst. Habitations Vers test. : 225
neriteum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 738

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Cyclope Risso, 1826: Keen, 1964, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 303.

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)28 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 793.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

16 August 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229

OPINION 794

SPALEROSOPHIS JAN, 1865 (REPTILIA): VALIDATED UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Chilolepis Fitzinger,
1843, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Spalerosophis Jan, 1865 (gender: masculine), type-
species, by monotypy, Sphalerosophis (sic) microlepis Jan, 1865, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1741.

(3) The specific name microlepis Jan, 1865, as published in the binomen
Sphalerosophis (sic) microlepis (type-species of Spalerosophis Jan, 1865) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2176.

(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified :

(a) Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in

(1) above) (Name No. 1892);
(b) Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865 (an incorrect original spelling for Spalerosophis
by the action of Marx, 1959, as first reviser) (Name No. 1893).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1627)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in January
1964 by Professor Eugen Kramer. Professor Kramer’s application was sent
to the printer on 28 February 1964 and was published on 16 October 1964 in
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 305. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as
to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials.

The proposal to suppress Chilolepis Fitzinger was supported by Professor
R. Mertens (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 14) and by Professor Hobart M. Smith,
who both, however, requested the preservation of the spelling Spalerosophis.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 16 June 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)30 either for or against the proposal
to suppress Chilolepis, as set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 305, and, as a
separate item, for the preservation of either Sphalerosophis or Spalerosophis.
At the close of the prescribed voting period on 16 September 1966 the state of
the voting was as follows:

Part 1. Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order:
China, Lemche, Holthuis, Brinck, Boschma, Vokes, Obruchey, Binder, do
Amaral, Uchida, Tortonese, Mertens, Mayr, Kraus, Forest, Alvarado,
Jaczewski, Evans.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.

Part 2. For Spalerosophis—twelve (12): Lemche, Holthuis, Brinck, Vokes,
Obruchev, Binder, Mertens, Kraus, Forest, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Evans.

For Sphalerosophis—six (6): China, Boschma, do Amaral, Uchida,
Tortonese, Mayr.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe.

Commissioners Ride, Stoll and Bonnet returned late affirmative votes for
the preservation of Spalerosophis. Commissioner Simpson returned a late
affirmative vote in favour of the preservation of Sphalerosophis. In returning
his negative vote Commissioner Sabrosky made the following comment:

““T do not consider the case serious enough to warrant Suspension of the
Rules, nor am I satisfied with the information and arguments presented.

“1. Original spelling: An error of transliteration had obviously occurred,
but under the new Code this is not to be considered an inadvertent error
(32a, ii) and hence not to be corrected, contrary to the applicant’s statement.
One is faced, rather, with two original spellings, Article 32b applies, and a first
reviser is free to make a choice between the two spellings. Marx (1959)
definitely mentioned both spellings and chose Spalerosophis; he is a reviser,
then, and he may well be the first reviser. If so, that is the correct original
spelling, and Suspension of the Rules would be necessary to upset it.

“2. The applicant states that Chilolepis *‘ has not been used in other than
a synonymic list since its first publication’ in 1843. There is an implication,
though not specifically stated, that it was used only as a junior synonym. On
the contrary, the first work mentioned, Cope (1886), is ‘ An analytical table of
the genera of snakes’ (a tabular form key to the genera of the world), and
Chilolepis is recognized as a valid genus.

“3. Schmidt (1930) is said to have ‘ resurrected ’ the name Spalerosophis.
Apparently it was also unused from the time of its original proposal until then,
except in the first two works noted for Chilolepis. Since then, the taxon is
said to appear * frequently * in the literature, but I am informed by a herpeto-
logist at the U.S. National Museum that rather rare snakes are involved, and
the number of papers is small.

““ The two most critical publications on this taxon were seriously in error,
in my opinion. Schmidt (1930), who correctly (according to modern authors)
recognized that this group of colubrid snakes deserved generic separation from
others included in Zamenis of Boulenger’s Catalogue, should have checked out
others of the numerous generic synonyms under Boulenger’s Zamenis before
seizing upon Spalerosophis. He resurrected the latter for the species diadema,
and cliffordii (type-species of Chilolepis) is now considered a subspecies of
diadema. Had Schmidt checked cliffordii, that able herpetologist would surely
have recognized that diadema and cliffordii were at least congeneric, and that
obviously the prior Chilolepis was the name of choice.

“* Marx (1959) reviewed the group, recognized that Chilolepis and Spalero-
sophis applied to the same taxon, and had an opportunity then to apply the
Rules. He rejected Chilolepis for three reasons, none of which appear to me
to be justified: (1) there was no diagnosis by Fitzinger [but Fitzinger included
an already described species, Coluber cliffordii Schlegel, 1837, and thus made

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231

the generic name available (cf. Art. 16a, v), even as many other Fitzinger names
are accepted]; (2) Chilolepis was not used to refer to any species in this genus
since its publication in 1843 [but Cope, 1886, clearly cited the type-species,
cliffordii]; and (3), Spalerosophis was used in ‘many papers’ since Schmidt
(1930) [but see above statement that the genus is rare. We are given no
information by Marx, nor by the applicant Kramer, on the extent of usage;
Marx actually cites few papers using Spalerosophis (or Sphalerosophis)]. As
first reviser (presumably), Marx also had the opportunity to choose the correct
spelling, Sphalerosophis, but he chose Spalerosophis on grounds of page
precedence, which is not mandatory.

“Incidentally, the Secretary should insist that page references be given.
It took some time-wasting search of Cope’s long paper to find the name in
question.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on the

Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 26
microlepis, Sphalerosophis, Jan, 1865, in Filippi, Note Viaggio Persia: 356-357
Spalerosophis Jan, 1865, in Filippi, Note Viaggio Persia: 356
Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865, an incorrect original spelling for Spalerosophis q.v.

The following is the original reference for a first reviser concerning a genus
involved in the present Ruling:
For Spalerosophis Jan, 1865: Marx, 1959, Fieldiana (Zool.) 39 : 348

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)30 were cast as set out
above, that one of the alternative proposals contained in that Voting Paper has
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken,
being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 794.

G. O. EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

23 September 1966

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SALPA EDWARDS, 1771 (PISCES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF SALPA FORSKAL, 1775
TOGETHER WITH THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR
THALIA BLUMENBACH, 1798 (TUNICATA, THALIACEA):
Z.N.(S.) 1651

By Miss J. P. Waal (University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa)

In 1756, P. Browne described some salps under the name Thalia, No. 1,2 & 3,
in his first edition of The Civil and Natural History of Jamaica, p. 384. This
name being pre-Linnean is not available under the Code. I consider that the
descriptions refer to salps at present known under the genus Cyclosalpa de
Blainville, 1827. In 1789 a second edition of Browne’s Natural History of
Jamaica was published, but since this was merely a copy of the first edition, the
name Thalia is again unavailable under Opinion 5 and Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4: 150.

2. In 1775, Forskal established the genus Salpa and described eleven species,
but his name is a junior homonym of Salpa G. Edwards, 1771 (Pisces). No
valid type-species was designated by Herdman 1891 or Metcalf 1918 (who
erroneously designated S. fusiformis Cuvier, 1804, not originally included by
Forskal). Apstein, however, 1915 (Sitz. Ges. Nat. Freund. Berlin, Nr. 5) in his
list of nomina conservanda, gives Salpa maxima Forskal as an “ example” of
Salpa. This might be regarded%as a type designation, but it is not in accord
with Article 69a (iii). In case Apstein’s designation is regarded as invalid, I
herewith designate the same species, Salpa maxima ForskAl, 1775, as the type-
species of Salpa Forskal 1775.

In order to conserve the well known Tunicate name Salpa Forskal, 1775, it
is necessary to apply for the suppression, under the plenary powers, of Salpa
G. Edwards, 1771, in the Fishes. This name has as its type-species, by mono-
typy, Salpa purpurascens variegata G. Edwards, 1771, which is currently re-
garded as a synonym of Lutianus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758). Unless suppressed,
Salpa G. Edwards, 1771, would replace the well known fish name Lutianus
Bloch, 1790, as well as making the well known Tunicate name Salpa Forskal,
1775, a junior homonym.

In 1792 [1798] Bruguiére correctly gave a new replacement name Biphora for
Salpa Forskal, 1775, nec G. Edwards 1771. Biphora has never been accepted
by Tunicate workers and is virtually a nomen oblitum. The suppression of Salpa
G. Edwards, as requested, would make Biphora a junior synonym of Salpa
Forskal, 1775, with the same type-species, Salpa maxima.

3. In 1798 the genus Thalia was first made available by Blumenbach who
defined it and described one species, Thalia lingulata Blumenbach which became
the type-species by monotypy. Most authors dealing with the systematics of
salps place Thalia lingulata Blumenbach in the synonymy of the species called
by some Thalia democratica (Forskal, 1775) and by others Salpa democratica
Forskal, 1775. However, Blumenbach himself pointed out in a paragraph
preceding his description of Thalia that his description included diagnostic

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233

features of a species of Browne’s genus Thalia. It follows that Blumenbach’s
description was of a Cyclosalpa because as stated in paragraph 1, Browne’s
species were Cyclosalps. The fact that test protrusions were not mentioned by
Blumenbach probably eliminates the solitary zooid of Thalia democratica
(Forskal, 1775) and also the aggregate zooid of Cyclosalpa de Blainville, 1827.
Blumenbach’s description best fits the solitary zooid of Cyclosalpa pinnata
(Forskal 1775), but his plate is so poor that a definite species identification from
it is impossible. Applying the Law of Priority, the generic name Cyclosalpa de
Blainville, 1827, would be replaced by the generic name Thalia Blumenbach,
1798, of which the type-species is, as mentioned above, Thalia lingulata Blumen-
bach, 1798. It is felt, however, that great confusion would result from a strict
application of the Rules in this case, firstly because the name Thalia is at present
used for a species of salp which is not a cyclosalp, and secondly because the name
Cyclosalpa is widespread in the literature, forming the basis of one of the two
major divisions in the family Salpidae.

In order to avoid this confusion it is considered that Salpa democratica
Forskal, 1775, should be designated, under the plenary powers as type-species of
Thalia Blumenbach, 1798, in spite of the fact that its type by monotypy under the
rules, Thalia lingulata Blumenbach, 1798, is probably a subjective synonym of
Salpa pinnata Forskal, 1775.

4. Lesson, 1831, described the subgenus Dubreuillia based on a single
species D. cirrhosa Lesson, 1831, which is therefore the type species by monotypy.

I consider this species to be synonymous with Thalia democratica (Forskal,
1775) and therefore Lesson’s name will become a junior subjective synonym of
Thalia Blumenbach if Salpa democratica Forskal is designated type-species of
Thalia under the plenary powers as proposed in Paragraph 3 above.

5. Lahille, 1890, in his classification of the salps (p. 11) used Thalia Blumen-
bach, 1798, for Thalia mucronata (Forskal, 1775). He wrote, “ Le genre Thalia
ne comprend que Il’espéce T. mucronata.” Herdman, 1891, in his monumental
work on Tunicates, regarded Thalia Blumenbach, 1798, (1810 sic) as consisting
only of Thalia democratica-mucronata (Forsk.). This species and Thalia mucron-
ata Lahille, 1890, are quoted in nearly all synonymies as being synonymous with
Thalia democratica (Forskal 1775).

Neither Lahille’s nor Herdman’s Thalia is a distinct genus and need not be
placed on the Official Index.

6. It might be considered that the confusion in the use of Thalia in the
history of the salps is great enough to warrant rejecting it altogether from the
family Salpidae, but if instead of Thalia lingulata Blumenbach, Salpa democratica
Forskal is designated as type-species under the plenary powers, then Thalia
Blumenbach could be retained in the sense of Metcalf, 1918.

Metcalf’s type-species designation of Thalia Blumenbach as Thalia demo-
cratica Forskal, by the way, is invalid since this species was not originally
included by Blumenbach in his genus.

Thalia Blumenbach so interpreted under the plenary powers, would be
distinct from Cyclosalpa de Blainville, 1827, type-species Salpa pinnata Forskal,
and would not replace it.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. In view of the facts set out in the preceding paragraphs, I now request
the International Commission:
(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the generic name Salpa G. Edwards, 1771, for purposes
of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy;

(b) to suppress all type-species designations for the genus Thalia
Blumenbach, 1798, prior to the present ruling and having done
so to designate Salpa democratica Forskal, 1775, as type species
of that genus;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic names
in Zoology:

(a) Salpa Forskal, 1775 (gender : feminine) type-species, by present
designation in Paragraph (2) above, Salpa maxima Forskal, 1775;

(b) Thalia Blumenbach, 1798 (gender : feminine) type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Salpa
democratica Forskal, 1775;

(c) Cyclosalpa de Blainville, 1827 (gender : feminine) type-species, by
designation by Metcalf, 1918, Salpa pinnata Forskal, 1775;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) maxima Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Salpa maxima
(type-species of Salpa Forskal, 1775);

(b) democratica Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Salpa
democratica (type-species of Thalia Blumenbach, 1798);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology:

Salpa G. Edwards (in Catesby) 1771, suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1)(a) above.

REFERENCES
APSTEIN, C. 1915. SitzBer. Ges. naturf. Freunde, Berlin, Zool. Nr. 5 : 186
BLAINVILLE, H. D. de 1827. Dict. Sci. nat., 47 : 108
Biocn, M. E. 1790. Nat. ausl. Fische IV : 105
BLUMENBACH, J. F. 1798. Abbild. nat. Gegenstande, Gottingen, 30
Browne, P. 1756. The Civil and nat. Hist. Jamaica, London, p. 384
—— 1789. 2nd ed.
BRUGUIERE, M. 1792. Ency. méth (Table Vers.) pl. 88
CATEsBy, M. 1771. Nat. Hist. Carolina, London II
Epwarps, G. 1771. Revision of Catesby’s work. II: 17
ForsKAL, P. 1775. Descr. Anim. : 112
HERDMAN, W. A. 1891. J. Linn. Soc. London 23 : 646
LAHILLE, F. 1890. Contributions a I’étude anatomique et taxonomique des Tunicies,
Toulouse
Lesson, R. P., in Duperry. 1831. ‘* Voy Coquille”, Zool. If (1) : 267
METCALF, M. M. 1918. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 100, 2(2) : 9

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235

PATANGA UVAROV, 1923 (INSECTA, ORTHOPTERA): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
Z.NAS.) 1761

By V. M. Dirsh
(Anti-Locust Research Centre, British Museum (Natural History), London)

In his paper entitled Centuria Insectorum, Amoen. Acad. 6 : 398, 1763,
Linnaeus described Gry/llus succinctus from Java. Some authors, including
Bey-Bienko and Mistshenko, have attributed this paper to Boas Johansson but
I am informed by Professor Per Brinck that Johansson was merely the student
who publicly discussed his Professor’s paper.

2. In the Linnaean Collection of the Linnaean Society in London is a
female specimen* which agrees fairly well with Linnaeus’ description and bears
the label “‘ succinctus”’, probably in Linnaeus’ handwriting. It is almost
certain that this is the specimen described by Linnaeus and that it is actually the
type of the species. For the sake of formality I herewith designate it as neotype
of Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 (Plate 1, figs. 1-7).

3. Later authors, from Olivier, 1791, onwards, used for this species the
generic names Acridium, Cyrtacanthacris and Locusta, except Fabricius, 1793,
who used the generic name Gryllus.

4. In 1923 Uvarov erected a new genus Patanga with the type-species
“Gryllus Locusta succinctus L.”’ Since then the name Patanga succincta
(L.) has been used by the majority of authors. However, Uvarov’s description
of the genus Patanga disagrees with the description of Gryllus succinctus by
Linnaeus in the most essential points (and some secondary points as well).
Linnaeus in his description stated “ Carina thoracis partim elevata tribus
incifuris.”” In Uvarov’s description of Patanga it is said: ““ Pronotum distinctly
compressed laterally and constricted in the prozona, with the median keel very
low and almost subobliterate.”

5. The type of succinctus mentioned in paragraph 2 above corresponds
with Linnaeus’ description and not with Uvarov’s description of the genus
Patanga and the species Patanga succincta (sensu Uvarov). The probable
explanation is that Uvarov, in describing his Patanga succincta, was not aware
of the existence of the type specimen of Gryllus succinctus in the Linnaean
Collection. Thus Patanga succincta Uvarov, 1923, is not Gryllus succinctus
Linnaeus, 1763, and Uvarov wrongly identified Linnaeus’ species when desig-
nating it the type-species of his genus Patanga. Under Article 70a of the Inter-
national Code, Patanga Uvarov, 1923, is based on a wrongly identified type-
species and is submitted to the International Commission for appropriate
action. The actual species which Uvarov had before him was Acridium assecta-
tor Fischer von Waldheim, 1833 and 1846. The first valid description of that
species was in 1833, but the plate referred to was not published until 1846.

* T wish to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. W. H. T. Tams who kindly helped me to
locate this specimen.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The male type specimen of Fischer von Waldheim’s species is lost but from the
description and a reasonably good figure in colour (1846) it is clear that this
species is identical with Patanga succincta Uvarov, 1923, nec Linnaeus, 1763.
In order to prevent any further confusion it is necessary to designate a neotype
under the plenary powers for Acridium assectator Fischer von Waldheim, 1833.
One of the specimens, a male, is therefore selected from the British Museum
(Nat. Hist.) collection labelled as follows: ‘“‘ Fed. Malay States, Sitiawan,
X. 1921, G. H. Corbett, Destructive to Padi, Pres. by Imp. Bur. Ent., British
Mus. 1922-311, Acridium assectator Fisch. von Waldheim, Neotype, V. M.
Dirsh.” The neotype is fully figured on Plate 2, figs. 1-7.

6. In the same paper (1923) Uvarov described another new genus, Valanga.
He did not designate the type-species of this genus, which remained without a
designated type until 1951 when Bey-Bienko and Mistshenko designated
Acridium nigricorne Burmeister, 1838. Uvarov’s description of this genus,
however, corresponds to Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763. Furthermore, the
designated type-species of Valanga Uvarov, Acridium nigricorne Burmeister, is
synonymous with Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763.

7. The type specimen of Acridium nigricorne is lost, but from the description
and by comparing it with specimens in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) and in
other Museums, identified by Uvarov, Willemse, Rehn and other orthopterolo-
gists, it is quite clear what the taxon Acridium nigricorne Burmeister, 1838, was
and is still considered to be. It is also certain that this species is synonymous
with Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763, as is proved by careful comparison of
descriptions and series of specimens of A. nigricorne with the neotype (type
specimen) of G. succinctus (see Plate 1, figs. 1-7).

8. In consequence of the facts set out above, much complicated and peculiar
confusion has arisen. In the genus Valanga the valid type-species is Acridium
nigricorne Burmeister, 1838, which is a junior synonym of Gryllus succinctus
Linnaeus, 1763, which was itself wrongly designated by Uvarov as the type-
species of Patanga.

9. The following synonymy will clarify the position:

Genus Valanga Uvarov, 1923
Type-species, by designation by Bey-Bienko and Mistshenko, 1951, Acri-
dium nigricorne Burmeister, 1838, the oldest available name for which is
Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763

Plate 1. 2 neotype of Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763.
1. Lateral view; 2. view from above; 3. label in Linnaeus’ hand-
writing; 4. phallic complex of a male specimen from above; 5. the
same, lateral view; 6. endophallus, lateral view; 7. epiphallus.

Plate 2. Neotype ¢ of Acridium assectator Fischer von Waldheim, 1833.
1. Lateral view; 2. view from above; 3. phallic complex from above;
4. the same, lateral view; 5. endophallus, lateral view; 6. epiphallus,
lophi in horizontal position; 7. the same, lophi in vertical position.

Symbols:

Ap. Apical valve of penis Apd. Apodemes of cingulum
Ac. Arch of cingulum Bp.’ _ Basal valve of penis

Cv. Valve of cingulum Ects. Ectophallic sclerotization
Ejd. Ejaculatory duct Ejs. Bjaculatory sac.

Rm. Ramus of cingulum Sps. Spermatophore sac.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23 Plate |

Plate 2 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237

Type-specimen (2) of A. nigricorne Burm. is lost and a male neotype is
herewith designated, that is, the specimen designated as neotype of
Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763 in 2 above (Plate 1, figs. 1-7).

Synonyms of Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus, 1763
a. Acridium nigricorne Burmeister, 1838 (Syn. nov.)

b. Valanga nigricornis (Burmeister, 1838) Uvarov, 1923
Genus Patanga Uvarov, 1923

Type-species Acridium assectator Fischer von Waldheim, 1833.

Type-specimen ¢ lost. Neotype designated, under the plenary powers in
5 above as one of British Museum (Nat. Hist.) specimens (Plate 2, figs. 1-7).

Synonyms a. Cyrtacanthacris fusilinea Walker, 1870. Type in the British
Museum (Nat. Hist.)

b. Patanga succincta Uvarov, 1923, nec. Linnaeus, 1763.

Any further synonymy later than Burmeister, 1838, can be dealt with when
the whole of the genus is revised.

10. The effect of the above changes is that the species popularly known up
to the present as Valanga nigricornis (Burmeister, 1838) must be called Valanga
succincta (Linnaeus, 1763) and that the species known hitherto as Patanga
succincta Linnaeus, 1763, must be called Patanga assectator Fischer von Wald-
heim. In order to clear up the confusion as set out above the International
Commission is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus
Patanga Uvarov, 1923, made prior to the Ruling now requested
and, having done so, to designate Acridium assectator Fischer
von Waldheim, 1833, to be the type of that genus;

(b) to designate the specimen in the British Museum, labelled as set
out in para. 5 above, as neotype of Acridium assectator Fischer
von Waldheim, 1833;

(c) to designate the specimen in the Linnaean Collection of the
Linnaean Society, Burlington House, London, labelled as set
out in para. 2, to be the neotype of Gryllus succinctus Linnaeus,
1763;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:

(a) Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (gender: feminine), type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Acridium
assectator Fischer von Waldheim, 1833;

(b) Valanga Uvarov, 1923 (gender : feminine), type-species, by
designation by Bey-Bienko & Mistshenko, 1951, Acridium
nigricorne Burmeister, 1838;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology:

(a) assectator Fischer von Waldheim, 1833, as published in the
binomen Acridium assectator, as interpreted by the neotype
designated under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above (type-
species of Patanga Uvarov, 1923);

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) succinctus Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the binomen Gryllus
succinctus, as interpreted by the neotype designated under the
plenary powers in (1) (b) above.

REFERENCES

Bey-BIENKO, G. J. and MIsSTSHENKO, L. L., 1951. Acridoidea of the Fauna of U.S.S.R.,
Moscow (in Russian) : 248

BuRMEISTER, H. 1838. Handb. Ent. 2 (2) : 629

FISCHER VON WALDHEIM, G. 1833. Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 6 : 380

— 1846. Orthoptéres dela Russie. Nouv. Mém. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 8 : 235,
pl. 12, fig. 2

Linnaeus, C. 1763. Centuria Insectorum, Amoen. Acad. 6 : 398

———_ 1767s Syst. Nat: (ed: 12)

Uvarov, B. P. 1923. A revision of the Old World Cyrtacanthacrini, Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist. (9) 12 : 365

WaLKER, F. 1870. Catalogue of the specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the
collection of the British Museum 3 : 564

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239

PROTEINUS LATREILLE, 1796 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
Z.N.(S.) 1763

By J. Jelinek (National Museum, Prague) and
W. O. Steel (Imperial College, London)

The nominal genus Proteinus was established by Latreille, 1796 (Précis
Caract. Ins.: 9) without included species. The same author ([{1802-1803],
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 135) fixed Dermestes pulicarius Linnaeus,
1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 357) as the type-species of Proteinus by making it
the first included species (type by subsequent monotypy).

2. Later, 1806 (Genera Crust. Ins. 1 : 298) Latreille used the generic name
Proteinus for the species Dermestes brachypterus Fabricius, 1792 (Ent. Syst. 1 :
235) and in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins.: 427) cited this species
as the type of the genus.

3. The first included species (Dermestes pulicarius Linnaeus) belongs to the
family Nitidulidae. It was reclassified by Latreille, 1807 (Genera Crust. Ins. 2 :
15) in the genus Cercus Latreille and by Gyllenhal, 1808 (Insecta Suecica 1 : 246)
in Cateretes Herbst. In 1858, Jacquelin Du Val (Gen. Coléopt. Europ. 2 : 138)
established the subgenus Heterostomus (of the genus Brachypterus Kugelann),
for two species, gravidus Illiger and cinereus Heer. Ganglbauer, 1908 (Kaf.
Mitteleuropa 3 : 454) considered Heterostomus Du Val as a separate genus.
Later, Grouvelle, 1913 (Ann. Soc. ent. France 81 : 387) pointed out that this name
was a junior homonym of Heterostomus Bigot, 1857 (Insecta : Diptera) and
replaced it by the new name Brachypterolus.

4. The species included by Latreille in 1806 and cited as type by him in 1810,
Dermestes brachypterus Fabricius, belongs to the family Staphylinidae, and is
generally accepted as being typical of the genus Proteinus.

5. Blackwelder, 1952 (Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 200: 413) pointed out that be-
cause of its type-species, Proteinus belonged to the family Nitidulidae and pro-
posed the new name Preronius for the Staphylinid genus.

6. If the Code is strictly obeyed, Proteinus Latreille, 1796, with the type-
species Dermestes pulicarius Linnaeus, must be the valid name for a genus of
Nitidulidae with the following synonymy:

Proteinus Latreille, 1796
= Heterostomus Du Val, 1858 (nec Bigot, 1857)
= Brachypterolus Grouvelle, 1913
Also, the genus of Staphylinidae previously known as Proteinus must be:
Pteronius Blackwelder, 1952
= Proteinus: Latreille, 1806, et auctt. (nec Latreille, 1796).

7. The generic name Proteinus Latreille has, however, been used in the
family Staphylinidae for more than 150 years. It is generally used in this sense
and the subfamily name Proteininae has been derived from it. In addition, the
name Brachypterolus Grouvelle has been used for a genus of the family Nitidulidae
for more than 50 years. Its replacement by a name generally used in the sub-
family Staphylinidae can only cause confusion.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. We therefore request the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-

clature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
the nominal genus Proteinus Latreille, 1796, made prior to the Ruling
now requested, and having done so, to designate Dermestes brachyp-
terus Fabricius, 1792, to be the type-species of that genus;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology:

(a) Proteinus Latreille, 1796 (gender : masculine), type-species, by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Dermestes
brachypterus Fabricius, 1792;

(b) Brachypterolus Grouvelle, 1913 (gender : masculine), type-species,
by present designation, Cantharetes gravidus Illiger, 1798 ;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) brachypterus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Der-
mestes brachypterus (type-species of Proteinus Latreille, 1796);

(b) pulicarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes
pulicarius.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241

MUSCA LATERALIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (INSECTA, DIPTERA):
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS.
Z.N.(S.) 1764

By A. C. Pont (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History),
London) and J. G. Chillcott (Entomology Research Institute, Research Branch,
Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa)

The purpose of this application is to request the suppression of the binomen
Musca lateralis Linnaeus and to validate the binomen Musca canicularis
Linnaeus. The latter name has been widely and consistently used for the past
200 years in both pure and applied entomology as the name for the Lesser
House-fly, but it has recently been shewn that it is a junior objective synonym of
Musca lateralis.

2. Linnaeus 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 597) described Musca lateralis as a
new species.

3. Linnaeus 1761 (Fauna svec. (ed. 2): 454) proposed the name Musca
canicularis as a new name for Musca lateralis, making his intentions clear and
unambiguous by the citation in synonymy of “‘ Musca lateralis. Syst. nat. 10.
p. 597. n. 60 (erronee).”

4. Huckett 1965 (in Stone, A., et. al., 4 Catalog of the Diptera of America
North of Mexico: 894) pointed out that Musca canicularis Linnaeus was an
unjustified new name for Musca lateralis, and stated the desirability of suppres-
sing the name /ateralis for the purposes of homonymy and synonymy.

5. We have not been able to trace a single reference to the name Musca
lateralis in any zoological literature between the time of Linnaeus (1758) and
Huckett (1965). The species in question has been known by the universally
accepted name canicularis and is now placed in the genus Fannia Robineau-
Desvoidy, 1830.

6. Fannia canicularis (Linnaeus), popularly known as the Lesser House-fly,
is cosmopolitan, having been recorded from all faunal regions and introduced
into many remote islands of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.

7. In the purely systematic literature, from 1761 to 1965, nearly 200 refer-
ences to canicularis are known to us. Many short papers and notes, breeding
notes, faunal lists, etc., allude to canicularis or mention the species solely by
name.

8. The name canicularis has appeared numerous times in the applied literature.
As a house-fly it has been discussed in many studies on synanthropic flies.
Students of the bionomics of blow-flies and other saprophagous and copro-
phagous flies have discussed its occurrence and significance in trapping and other
experiments. It causes tertiary myiasis in sheep, and figures in the medical
literature as the principal cause of gastric, intestinal and urinary myiasis in
man; it is a mechanical vector of pathogenic organisms.

9. The change of the well known and universally accepted name canicularis
to the unrecognized name /ateralis is against the interests of nomenclatural
stability, and the name canicularis should continue to be available for this

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

species. The interests of stability and uniformity in nomenclature will best be
served if /ateralis is suppressed, and the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is therefore asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name /ateralis Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the binomen Musca Jateralis, for the purposes of
both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the specific name /ateralis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Musca lateralis (as suppressed under the plenary powers in
(1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name canicularis Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the
binomen Musca canicularis, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243

APPLICATION TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED

NAMES IN ZOOLOGY, THE GENERIC NAME RATTON AND THE

SPECIFIC NAMES R. AGRESTE, R. BLANCODEBAXO, R. COLIBREVE,

R. ESPINOSO, AND R. TUCOTUCO, DATED FROM BRANTS 1827.
Z.N.(S.) 1775

By Alfredo Langguth (Dr. Senckenbergische Anatomie der Universitét,
Frankfurt a.M., Germany)

In the spanish edition of his work on the Mammals of Paraguay, Felix de
Azara (1802) gives a more complete account of the cricetids than that published
1801 in the french edition. Three new mice are there described: ratton agreste,
ratton blanco-debaxo and ratton colibreve. Azara did not apply linnean
nomenclature to the mice he described but vernacular names.

2. The first naturalist to apply linnean nomenclature to these three animals
was Brants (1827). Brants used Desmarest’s names for the mice described in
the french edition but realized that the other three of the spanish edition
remained without names. He simply took Azara’s vernacular names and
employed them as linnean. The name Ratton was used by him for a very
heterogeneous division including:

Ratton agreste ratton agreste of Azara

Ratton blanco debaxo ratton blanco debaxo of Azara
Ratton colibreve ratton colibreve of Azara
Ratton espinoso ratton espinoso of Azara
Ratton tucotuco tucotuco of Azara

The last two animals do not belong to the cricetids. R. espinoso is a junior
objective synonym of Euryzygomatomys spinosus (G. Fischer).

3. Brants placed the name Ratton in the same category as other generic
names like Mus and Spalax. There is no doubt that Brants used Ratton as a
generic name. This has been also realized by Neave who listed the genus
Ratton in the “ Nomenclator zoologicus ”’.

4. The next naturalist to give linnean names for the mice of the spanish
edition was J. B. Fischer (1829). He named only two of the three new mice of
1802. The names are:

M [us] azarae ratton agreste of Azara

M{[us] dubius ratton blanco debaxo of Azara.

No other new names seem to have been applied to the cricetids concerned.

5. J. B. Fischer’s names for the two above mentioned mice have been
generally accepted. They are the only names mentioned in the revision of
the taxonomy of Azara’s mice by Tate (1932), in the “ Index Animalium ” of
Sherborn and in the Catalogue of Cabrera (1961). The ratton colibreve remained
unnamed. Probably because of their identity with the vernacular names of
Azara, the five Brants names were never considered as senior synonyms by
subsequent authors. According to Art. 23(b) of the Code they are to be
considered forgotten names. After more than 130 years’ oblivion, however,

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the name agreste in the combination Akodon agreste has been recently employed
by Hershkovitz (1966 : 106).
6. Since:

(a) Brants names have never been employed and their introduction
will not contribute to the stability of the neotropical rodent
nomenclature but to more confusion;

(b) The use of the name Akodon colibreve (Brants) as the appropriate
name for the colibreve will cause the dropping in synonymy
of his very probably junior synonym Akodon obscurus (Water-
house) a generally employed and well characterized nominal
species for which a type is available;

7. I proposed that the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:

(a) the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, p. 184;

(b) the specific name agreste Brants, 1827, p. 184, as published in the
binomen Ratton agreste;

(d) the specific name colibreve Brants, 1827, p. 186, as published
in the binomen Ratton colibreve;

(e) the specific name espinoso Brants, 1827, p. 186, as published in the
binomen Ratton espinoso;

(f) the specific name tucotuco Brants, 1827, p. 187, as published in the
binomen Ratton tucotuco;

(2) to place the names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above
on the appropriate Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in

Zoology.

REFERENCES

AZARA, FELIX DE. 1802. Apuntamientos para la historia natural de los cuadrupedos
del Paraguay y Rio de Ja Plata. Madrid, 2.

Brants, A. 1827. Het Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld..., Berlin,
pp. XII + 190, 1 pl.

CABRERA, ANGEL. 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rev.
Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat., Bs. As. Zool. 4(2) : 309-732.

FISCHER, JOANNE BAPTISTA. 1829. Synopsis Mammalium. Stuttgart, XLII +
752 pp.

HERSHKOVITZ, PuiLip. 1966. South American swamp and fossorial rats of the
scapteromyine group (Cricetinae, Muridae) with comments on the glans penis
in murid taxonomy. Zeits. Sdugetierkunde, 31 : 80-149.

Tate, G.H.H. 1932. The South American Cricetidae described by Félix de Azara.
Amer. Mus. Novitates, No. 557, pp. 1-5.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245

DIPLOSOMA MACDONALD, 1859 (ASCIDEACEA): PROPOSED
VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1766

By F. W. E. Rowe (Department of Zoology,
British Museum (Natural History), London)

Milne Edwards (1841) introduced the generic name Leptoclinum for six
new species, maculosum, asperum, durum, fulgens, gelatinosum and listerianum.
The last of these was unseen by Milne Edwards, being based on an earlier des-
cription of an unnamed ascidian by Lister (1834).

Hartmeyer (1909a), agreeing with Della Valle (1908), declared that Lepto-
clinum Milne Edwards was insufficiently characterized as a genus. However he
considered that of the six individual nominal species, which were still recogniz-
able from their figures alone, L. maculosum, asperum, durum and fulgens were
referable to the genus Didemnum Savigny, 1816 (type-species D. candidum
Savigny, 1816), thus restricting the type-species of Leptoclinum to either L.
gelatinosum or listerianum. L. gelatinosum had been considered by Lahille
(1890) to be conspecific with (or certainly not more than subspecifically distinct
from) listerianum. He abbreviated the name /isterianum to listeri. By elimina-
tion therefore, and as Milne Edwards himself did not designate a type-species
for his genus, Hartmeyer (1909) concluded that /isterianum becomes the type-
species of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards. It should be noted that the name
gelatinosum has page priority over listerianum which presumably prompted
Harant (1933) to retain the specific name gelatinosum and treat listerianum as a
variety of it. However a search of the literature shows that an incidence ratio
of listerianum : gelatinosum is 2: 1. Hartmeyer (1909) further had no doubt
that, as Lahille (1890) had shown, gelatinosum and listerianum are congeneric
with Diplosoma rayneri Macdonald (1859), the type-species of Diplosoma Mac-
donald, 1859. I consider that he was right therefore to make Diplosoma a
synonym of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards. Lahille (1890) had already treated
D. rayneri as a synonym of D. listerianum.

In 1915 Hartmeyer ignored the law of priority and reversed this generic
synonymy on the grounds that Diplosoma was more widely used. Simul-
taneously he designated Leptoclinum listerianum Milne Edwards as the type-
species of Diplosoma Macdonald for the same reason. In the same year
Apstein (apparently after prior consultation with Hartmeyer) listed Diplosoma
as a valid generic name with /isterianum Milne Edwards designated as a type-
species.

2. A search through published works, both prior and subsequent to
Hartmeyer 1909 and 1915, shows a divided usage of generic name but Diplosoma
Macdonald rather than Leptoclinum Milne Edwards is favoured quantitatively
by a 2:5: 1 ratio. Diplosoma has been used by:

Apstein (1915) Herdman (1886-1906)
Brewin (1946-1960) Lahille (1890)
Carlisle (1953-1961) Millar (1949-1963)
Caullery (1895) Oka (1892)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Della Valle (1881-1908) Parenzan (1960)
Von Drasche (1883) Pérés (1945-1962)
Goodbody (1961-1962) Pizon (1905-1906)
Gottschaldt (1898) Salensky (1894)
Harant (1927-1933) Thompson (1934)

Hastings (1930)
Leptoclinum has been used (in the Diplosoma sense) by:

Alder and Hancock (1912) Milne Edwards (1841)
Capocaccia (1964) Ritter and Forsyth (1917)
Forbes (1848) Salfi (1932-1946)
Huntsman (1912) Tokioka (1942-1963)
Divided use of the two generic names by:
Diplosoma Leptoclinum
Berrill 1928, 1935, 1936, 1950 1932 only
Hartmeyer 1906, 1915, 1919, 1922, 1924 1909, 1912, 1914, 1915
Huus 1927 1937, 1950
Kott 1952, 1957 1962
Michaelsen 1919, 1920, 1923, 1930 1915 only
Sluiter 1898, 1906, 1927, 1929, 1932 1909, 1912, 1914
Van Name 1902, 1945 1918, 1921

From the above tables it can be clearly seen that the name Diplosoma has
been, and still is, more popularly accepted than Leptoclinum. Of the authors
who have divided their usage of the two generic names, Michaelsen and Sluiter
merely followed Hartmeyer, as prior to 1909 and subsequent to 1915 all three
authors adopted the name Diplosoma. Berrill used Leptoclinum only in 1932
when he referred to L. macdonaldi (Herdman) from the Bermudas. Kott and
Huus though they used the name Diplosoma in their earlier papers on ascidians
have since changed to Leptoclinum. In 1902 Van Name described two new
species of Diplosoma (atropunctata and lacteum) but in 1918 and 1921 he
referred both these species and also D. macdonaldi to Leptoclinum. However,
in 1945 he reverted to the use of Diplosoma saying that this is a ‘‘ Nomen con-
servandum antedated by Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841, which name has,
however, been more often applied to the genus Didemnum in this present work.”

3. Several workers including Sluiter, Herdman and Hartmeyer have
referred species to Leptoclinum which should more properly have been included
in the genus Didemnum Savigny, thus confusing the generic limits of Leptoclinum.

4. The number of nominal species which have been referred primarily to

Diplosoma Macdonald is sixteen. These are:
D. rayneri Macdonald (1859), D. carnosum and chamaeleon von Drasche (1883),
D. macdonaldi Herdman (1886), D. koehleri Lahille (1890), D. mitsukurii Oka
(1892), D. globulare, molle, circumscriptum and ternatum Gottschaldt (1898),
D. atropunctatum and lacteum Van Name (1902), D. viride Herdman (1906),
D. modestum Michaelsen (1920). D. pseudoleptoclinum von Drasche (1883) is
currently referred to Lissoclinum and D. purpurea Sluiter (1898) I consider to be
a synonym of Cystodytes dellechiajei (Della Valle, 1877).

Similarly nineteen nominal species have been referred to Leptoclinum (in the
Diplosoma sense). These are:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247

L. gelatinosum and listerianum Milne Edwards (1841), L. punctatum Forbes
(1848), L. perspicuum Sluiter (1909) [Hartmeyer (1909) replaced this name with
L. translucidum, presumably because Giard (1873) had already used perspicuum
for a new species of Leptoclinum which Hartmeyer referred to the genus Didem-
num Savigny. As Giard’s and Sluiter’s species have not been contemporaneously
thought to be congeneric, the name L. perspicuum Sluiter (1909) is still valid,]
L. varium, simile, marmoratum, papyraceum, subviridis and multifidum Sluiter
(1909), L. longinquum Sluiter (1912), L. pizoni Ritter and Forsyth (1917), L. okai
and macrolobium Tokioka (1949), L. takarai Tokioka (1951), and L. midori
Tokioka (1954). L. calificiforme Sluiter (1909) is considered to be probably
referable to Coelocormus by Kott (1962) and she also considers that L. discrepans
Sluiter (1909) may represent a new genus related to Trididemnum.

Although the validity of all these nominal species is not unquestioned, there
is no significant argument for retention of Leptoclinum Milne Edwards (1841)
rather than Diplosoma Macdonald (1859) on the basis of the number of species
included.

Since the majority of recent publications use the name Diplosoma, less con-
fusion would ensue if the International Commission were to suppress Lepto-
clinum Milne Edwards (1841) and validate Diplosoma Macdonald (1859)
although this does involve a contradiction of priorities.

5. Lahille (1890), the first reviser of Diplosoma, gave priority to listerianum
for the type-species (though terming it /isteri) over D. rayneri (the type-species
of Diplosoma Macdonald by monotypy) referring rayneri to the synonymy of
listerianum Milne Edwards (Rowe (1966); in press). Also Hartmeyer (1915)
designated L. /isterianum as type-species of Diplosoma Macdonald. I think it
desirable that this disposition should be followed since the incidence of rayneri
has been comparatively negligible, being restricted to a few records from Aust-
ralian seas. Although it seems contradictory to ask for one specific name
(listerianum) in combination with the opposite generic name (Diplosoma), in
my opinion this would involve the least confusion, judging from frequency in
the literature.

6. In order, therefore, to ensure stability and prevent further confusion the
International Commission is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Leptoclinum Milne
Edwards, 1841, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the generic name Diplosoma Macdonald, 1859 (gender :
neuter), type-species, by monotypy Diplosoma rayneri Macdonald,
1859, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name /isterianum Milne Edwards, 1841, as published
in the binomen Leptoclinum listerianum, on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

The whereabouts of Lister’s type-material of /isterianum and Macdonald’s
holotype of Diplosoma rayneri are unknown. Also Milne Edwards’ specimens,
which include the holotypes of Didemnum gelatinosum and L. gelatinosum
cannot now be traced in the Paris Museum. The provenance of the species
therefore depends entirely on Lister’s description of material from Brighton.

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Against the event that the Commission agree on the name Jisterianum as the
best one for the species, in a separate paper (Rowe (1966); in press), a description
is provided of a specimen from Brighton which could be designated as the neo-
type of Jisterianum.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Miss A. M. Clark for all her en-
couragement during the preparation of this paper, also Dr. G. Cherbonnier
(of the Paris Museum) for his co-operation.

REFERENCES

ALpeR, J. and Hancock, A. 1912. The British Tunicata. Vol. iii. Edited by
Hopkinson. Ray Society London. 1912 : 1-113, pls. LI-LXVI, figs. 88-135

APSTEIN, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezial-
isten herausgegeben von Prof. C. Apstein, Berlin. S.B. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl.
1915 : 119-202. (Tunicata: 185-6)

BERRILL, N. J. 1928a. The identification and validity of certain species of Ascidians.
J. mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 15(1) : 159-176, 6 figs.

— 1928b. The Ascidian fauna of the Plymouth area. J. mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K.
15(1) : 177-181

— 1932. Ascidians of the Bermudas. Biol. Bull. Woods Hole 62 : 77-88, 5 figs.

— 1935. Studies in Tunicate development. III. Differential retardation and
acceleration. IX. Asexual reproduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (B) 225 : 255-
326, 327-379, 52 figs.

— 1936. Studies in Tunicate development. V. The evolution and classifica-
tion of Ascidians. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (B) 226 : 43-70, 40 figs.

—— 1950. The Tunicata, with an account of the British species. Ray Society
London. 1950 : iii + 354 pp., 120 figs.

BREWIN, B. I. 1946. Ascidians in the vicinity of the Porto Bello Marine Biological
Station, Otago Harbour. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 76 : 87-131. 5 pls., 19 figs.

— 1948. Ascidians of the Hauraki Gulf. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 77 : 115-38,
9 figs.

— 1950. Ascidians of New Zealand. Part IV. Ascidians in the vicinity of
Christchurch. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 78 : 344-53, 5 figs.

— 1951. Ascidians of New Zealand. Part VI. Ascidians of the Hauraki Gulf.
Part II. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 79 : 104-113. 8 figs.

— 1958. Ascidians of New Zealand. Part XI. Ascidians of the Stewart
Island region. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 85 : 439-453, 3 figs.

— 1960. Ascidians of New Zealand. Part XIII. Ascidians of the Cook Strait
region. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z. 88 : 119-120

CapocacciA, L. 1964. Gli Ascidiacei del Golfo di Genova. Rassegna Preliminare.
Annali Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 75 : 1-12

CARLISLE, D. B. 1953. Presenza di spicole in Diplosoma listerianum (Milne Edw:).
Contributo alla sistematica degli Ascidiacea, Didemnidae. Pubbl. Staz. zool.
Napoli 24 : 62-68, | fig.

— 1954. Notes on the Didemnidae (Ascidiacea). II. The number of rows of
stigmata in Didemnum gelatinosum Milne Edwards and in Didemnum maculosum
(Milne Edwards). J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 33(1) : 27-32, 2 figs.

— 1961. Locomotory powers of adult ascidians. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 135 :
141-146, 2 figs.

CAULLERY, M. 1895a. Sur l’interprétation morphologique de la larve double dans
les Ascidies composées du genre Diplosoma. C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 121:
776-780, 3 figs.

— 1895b. Contributions a l’étude des ascidies composées. Bull. Sci. Fr. Belg.
27 : 1-158, 7 pls.

DRASCHE, R. VON. 1883. Die Synascidien der Bucht von Rovigno. Wien: 41 pp. 11 pls.

Epwarps, M.H. Mitne. 1841. Observations sur les ascidies composées des cétes de
la Manche. Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr. 1842 (1839) 18 : 217-326, pls. 1-8

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249

Fores, E. 1848. [in] E. Forbes and Hanley British Mollusca. Vol. 1: 18

Goopsopy, I. 1961. Continuous breeding in three species of tropical ascidians.
Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 136 : 403-409, 6 figs.

—— 1961. Inhibition of the development of a marine sessilecommunity. Nature,
Lond. 190 : 282-283

— 1961. Mass mortality of a marine fauna following tropical rain. Ecology
42 : 150-155, 2 figs.

— 1962. The biology of Ascidia nigra (Savigny). 1. Survival and mortality in
an adult population. Biol. Bull. Woods Hole 122 : 40-51, 4 figs.

GOTTSCHALDT, R. 1898. Synascidien von Ternate. Abh. senckenb. naturf. Ges. 24:
641-660, pls. 35-36

HARANT, H. 1927. La faune ascidiologique de Banyuls et de Cette: essai de révision
des ascidies de la Méditerranée occidentale. Ann. Inst. océanogr. Paris 4 : 209-
251, figs.

— 1928. Introduction synoptique 4 une faune de France des Tuniciers. III.
Ascidies aplousobranchiates. Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco 517 : 11 pp.

—— and VERNIERES, P. 1933. Tuniciers: I. Ascidies. Faune de France, Paris
27 : 1-99, 94 figs.

HARTMEYER, R. 1906. Die Ascidien von Helgoland. (Beitrage z. Meeresfauna v.
Helgoland, hrsg. v.d. biolog. Anstalt Helgoland. 15.) Wiss. Meeresunters.,
N.F. 8 : 117-127

— 1909a. Zur terminologie der Didemnidae. S$.B. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl.
1909 : 575-581

— 1909b. Ascidien, in Bronn, H. G., Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs
3(2), Suppl. 1, 86-87 : 1425-1488, pl. X

—— 1912. [in] Crawshay, R., On the fauna of the outer western area of the English
Channel. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 9 : 292-393. (Tunicata : 379-383)

—— 1914. Die ascidienfauna von Plymouth. S$.B. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl.
10 : 428-434

—— 1915a. Alder and Hancock’s Britische Tunicaten. Eine Revision. Mitt.
zool. Mus. Berl. 7(3) : 303-344

— 1915b. Results of a biological survey of Blacksod Bay, Co. Mayo. Tunicata.
Sci. Invest. Fish Branch. Ire. 1915 : 68-70

—— 1915c. Ascidiarum nomina conservandum. S.B. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl.
1915 : 247-258

— 1919. Results of Dr. E. Mjoberg’s Swedish scientific expeditions to Australia
1910-1913. 25. Ascidien. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 60(4) : 1-150,
2 pls., 23 figs.

— 1921. Die ascidienfauna des Trondhjemfjords. K. norske Vidensk. selsk.
Skr. 6 : 1-48, 7 figs., 1 map

—— 1924. Ascidiacea, part II. Zugleich eine Ubersicht uber die Arktische und
boreale Ascidienfauna auf tiergeographische Grundlage. Danish Ingolf-
Exped. Copenhagen 2(7) : 275 pp., 45 figs.

Hastincs, A. B. 1931. Tunicata. Sci. Rep. Gr. Barrier Reef Exped. 4(3) : 69-109,
3 pls., 17 figs.

HERDMAN, W. A. 1886. Tunicata. Rep. Sci. Res. ‘‘ Challenger ’’, (Zool.) 14 : 429
pp., 49 pls., 15 figs.

—— 1889. Second report upon the Tunicata of the L.M.B.C. District. Proc.
Trans. Lpool. biol. Soc. 3 : 240-260, pl. xiii

—— 1891. A revised classification of the Tunicata. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 23 : 558-

652
—— 1898. Note on the Tunicata Fauna of Australian Seas. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist.
(7)1 : 443-450

—— 1899. Descriptive catalogue of the Tunicata in the Australian Museum,
Sydney, N.S.W. Cat. Aust. Mus. 27 : xviii +139 pp., 45 pls.

—— 1904. Ascidians and Amphioxus. Cambridge Natural History 7 : 33-138,
figs., 15-90

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

—— 1906. Report on the Tunicata collected by Prof. Herdman at Ceylon in 1902.
Rep. Pearl Oyster Fish. (suppl. rep.) London, 39, part 5 : 295-348, pls. 1-9

HuNTSMAN, A. G. 1912. Ascidians from the coasts of Canada. Trans. Canad.
Inst. 9 : 111-148

Huus, J. 1927. Uber die Ausbreitungshindernisse der Meeresteifen und die geo-
graphische Verbreitung der Ascidien. Nytt. Mag. Naturvid. Oslo 65 : 153-174,
figs.

— 1937. Tunicata: Ascidiaceae in Kukenthal u. Krumbach. Handbuch der
Zoologie, Berlin u. Leipzig (2) 5(6) : 545-672, 122 figs.

—— and Knupsen, J. 1950. Tunicata [in] Fridriksson, A and Tuxen, S. L.:
Zoology of Iceland 4. Copenhagen and Reykjavik (Ejmar Munksgaard) :
25 pp.

Kott, P. 1952. Observations on compound ascidians of the Plymouth area with
descriptions of two new species. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 31(1) : 65-83, 3 figs.

—— 1957. Thesessile Tunicata. Sci. Rep. John Murray Exped. 10 : 129-149.

—— 1962. The Ascidians of Australia. III. Aplousobranchiata Lahille: Didem-
nidae Giard. Austr. J. mar. Fresh wat. Res. 13(3) : 265-334. 50 figs.

LAHILLE, A. 1890. Recherches sur des Tuniciers des cétes de France. Toulouse,
330 pp., 177 figs.

Lister, J.J. 1834. 18. Some observations on the structure and functions of tubular
and cellular Polypi and of Ascidiae. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 125 : 365-388,
pls. VIII-XII

MACDONALD, J. D. 1859. On the anatomical characters of a remarkable form of
compound Tunicata. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 22(4) : 373-375, 1 pl.

MICHAELSEN, W. 1915. Tunicata. [in] Beitrdge zur Kenntnis Meeresfauna
Westafrikas 1(3) : 321-518, 4 pls., 4 figs.

— 1919. Zur Kenntniss der Didemniden. Abh. Geb. Naturw. Hamb. 21(1) :
1-44, 3 figs.

— 1920. Die Krikobranchien Ascidien des westlichen Indischen Ozeans. Didem-
niden. Jb. Wiss. Anst. Hamburg 37(2) : 1-74, 2 pls., 6 figs.

— 1923. Die Botrylliden und Didemniden der Nordsee und der zur Ostsee
fuhrenden Meeresgebiete. Wiss. Meeresunters. 14 : 97-124, 7 figs.

— 1930a. Die Fauna Sudwest Australiens. Ergebnisse der Hamberger Siidwest-
australischen Forschungsreise. 5, (7) : 463-558, 12 figs.

— 1930b. Seecheiden oder Ascidiae. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands. 17 : 164-188,
27 figs.

Mitiar, R.H. 1949. The larva of a Didemnid ascidian, with notes on the structure
of the colony and the adult. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 28 : 583-586, 1 fig.

— 1951. The stolonic vessels of the Didemnidae. Quart. J. Micr. Sci. 92(3):
249-254, 3 figs.

—— 1952. The littoral ascidians of Argyll. Scottish Naturalist 64(1) : 19-35, 1 pl.

— 1952b. The annual growth and reproductive cycle in four ascidians. J. mar.
biol. Ass. U.K. 31 : 41-61, 11 figs.

— 1953. On a collection of ascidians from the Gold Coast. Proc. zool. Soc.
Lond. 123(2) : 277-325, 26 figs., 1 table

— 1955. Ona collection of ascidians from S. Africa. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.
125(1) : 169-221, 40 figs.

— 1957. Ascidians from Mozambique E. Africa. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12)
9 : 913-932, 15 figs.

— 1960. Ascidiacea. The fauna of the Clyde Sea Area. Méillport: 3-16, 9 figs.,
key

—— 1962a. Further descriptions of S. African ascidians. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 46(7) :
113-221, 45 figs, 3 tables

— 1962b. Some ascidians from the Carribbean. Natuurwet. Stud. Suriname
No. 26 : 61-77, 4 figs.

— 1963. Australian ascidians in the British Museum (Natural History). Proc.
zool. Soc. Lond. 141(4) : 689-746, 47 figs.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251

Name, W. G. vAN. 1902. The Ascidians of the Bermuda Islands. Trans. Conn.
Acad. Arts Sci. 11 : 325-412, Pls. xlvi-Ixiv.

—— 1918. Ascidians from the Philippines and adjacent waters. Bull. U.S. nat.
Mus. 100(1) : 49-174, 115 figs., 11 pls.

—— 1921. Ascidians of the West Indian Region and Southeastern United States.
Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 44 : 283-494, 159 figs.

—— 1945. The North and South American ascidians. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist.
84 : 1-476, 327 figs., 31 pls.

Oxa, H. 1892. Die Periodische Regeneration der oberen Korperhalfte bei den
Diplosomiden. Biol. Centrabl. 1892 : 265-268, and Amer. Nat. 26 : 619-620

PARENZAN, P. 1960. Aspetti biocenotici dei fondo ad alghi litoproduttrici de
Mediterraneo. Rapp. Comm. int. Mer. médit. 15 : 87-107

PErEs, J-M. 1945. Recherches sur lorgane neural des Ascidies aplousobranches.
Bull. Inst. océanogr. Monaco 888 : 1-12, 2 figs.

—— 1949. Notes sommaires sur le peuplement ascidiologique de la sous-région
mauritanienne. C.R. Soc. Biogéogr. Paris 26(222-224) : 3-5

—— 1952. Ascidies de la roches littorales Corse. Rec. Trav. Sta. mar. Endoume
6 : 35-44, 1 pl.

—— 1956a. Résultats scientifiques des campagnes de la Calypso. IV. Etudes sur
le seuil Siculo-Tunisien II Ascidies. Ann. Inst. océanogr., Paris N.S. 32:
265-304

—— 1956b. Notes sommaires sur quelques ascidies récoltées dans la lagune de
Venise par M. Giordani Soika. Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. nat. Venezia 9 : 7-9

—— 1958a. Ascidies récoltées sur les cOtes méditerranéenaires d’Israel. Bull. res.
Counc. Israel TB : 143-150

—— 1958b. Ascidies de la Baie de Haifa collectées par E. Gottlieb. Bull. res.
Counc. Israel 7B : 151-164.

—— 1958c. Origine et affinités du peuplement en Ascidies de la Méditerranée.
Rapp. Comm. int. Mer. médit. 14 : 493-502

—— 1959a. Ascidies récoltées sur les cdtes d’Algérie par le “ Professeur Lacaze-
Duthiers ” (1952). Vie et Milieu 10 : 189-194.

—— 1959b. Campagne de la Calypso en mer d’Alboran et dans la baie Ibéro-
Marocaine (1958) I. Ascidies. Ann. Inst. océanogr. Paris N.F. 37 : 295-313,
4 figs.

—— 1962. Sur une collection d’ascidies de la céte israelienne de la Mer Rouge et de
la Peninsule du Sinai. Bull. Sea Fish. Res. Sta. Israel 30 : 39-47

Pizon, A. 1905. L’évolution des Diplosomes (Ascidies composées). Arch. zool.
exp. gén. (4) 4: 1-68, pl.

—— 1906. L’évolution des colonies de Diplosoma spongiforme Giard et la displanch-
tomie des ascidiozoides. C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 142 : 463-465

Ritter, W. E., and ForsytH, R.A. 1917. Ascidians of the littoral zone of southern
California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 16 : 439-512, pls. 38-46 é

SALENSKY, W. 1894. Beitrage zur entwicklung der Synascidian I. Uber die
entwicklung von Diplosoma listeri. Mitt. zool. Sta. Neapel. 11(3) : 368-414,
4 pls.

SatFl, M. 1932. Gli Ascidiacei del Golfo di Napoli. Pubbl. Staz. zool. Napoli, 11 :
293-360, 49 figs., 5 pls.

—— 1946. Ascidiacei della Laguna Veneta. Boll. Pesca Piscic. Idrobiol. 22 : 5-7,
1 fig.

SLuiTerR, C.PH. 1898. Tuniciers recueillis en 1896 par la “‘Chazalie” dans la mer des
Antilles. Mém. Soc. Zool. France. 11 : 5-34, pls. i-iii

— 1906. Seconde note sur les tuniciers recueillis dans l’Antarctique par l’Expédi-
tion du Dr. Charcot. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris. 1906 : 550-555

—— 1909. Die Merosomen Ascidien. Rep. Siboga Exped. 56b : 112 pp., 8 pls.

—— 1912. Les Ascidiens de l’Expédition antarctique francaise du “* Pourquoi-
Pas * commandée par le Dr. Charcot 1908-9. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris. 18 :
452-460

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

—— 1914a. Les Tuniciers Deuxiéme Expédition Antarctique Francaise : 1-39,
pls. i-iv

— 1914b. Ascidien von den Aru Inseln [In: Ergebnisse e zool. Forschungsreise
in d. Siidéstl. Molukken v. H. Merton 3(1)] Abh. Senckenb. naturforsch. Ges.
35 : 63-78, 2 pls.

— 1927. Les Ascidies de la cote atlantique du Maroc. Bull. Soc. Sci. nat. phys.
Maroc. 7 : 50-99, figs. & pls.

— 1929. Seconde note complémentaire sur ‘‘ Les Ascidies de la C6te du Maroc ”’.
Bull. Soc. Sci. nat. phys. Maroc. 9 : 113-119, 3 figs.

— 1932. Die von Dr. L. Kohl-Larsen gesammelten Ascidien von Siid Georgien
und der Stewart Inseln. Senckenbergiana, Frankfurt 14 : 1-19, 12 figs.
THomPSON, H. 1934. The Tunicata of the Scottish Area. Sci. Invest. Fishery Bd

Scotl. 1934(1) : 3-44, pls. 29-41, charts 42-56

TokiokA, T. 1942. Ascidians found on the Mangrove Trees in Iwayama Bay,
Palao. Palao trop. biol. Sta. Stud. 2(3) : 497-506, 2 figs., 1 pl.

—— 1949a. Contributions to the Japanese Ascidian fauna: I. Ascidians collected
by Prof. Miyadi and Mr. Masui during bottom survey 1939-1940. Publ. Seto
mar. biol. Lab. (1) : 7-17, 7 pls.

—— 1949b. Contributions to the Japanese Ascidian fauna: II. Notes on some
Ascidians collected chiefly along the coast of Kii Peninsula. Publi. Seto mar.
biol. Lab. 1(2) : 41-64, 16 figs. Ipl.

—— 1954. Invertebrate fauna of the intertidal zone of the Tokara Islands. Publ.
Seto mar. biol. Lab. 3(3) : 239-264, pls. xviii-xxxvii

— 1955. Revision of the ascidians described and illustrated in Japanese ‘‘ Dobutu
Zuken’’. Zool. Mag. Tokyo 64 : 20-23

—— 1962. Contributions to the Japanese Ascidian fauna: XVIII. Ascidians from
Sado Island and some records from Sagami Bay. Publ. Seto mar. biol. Lab.
10(1) : 1-20, 3 pls.

—— 1963. Contributions to the Japanese Ascidian fauna: XX. The outline of
Japanese Ascidian fauna as compared with that of the Pacific coasts of North
America. Publ. Seto mar. biol. Lab. 11(1) : 131-156

VALLE, A. DELLA. 1881. Nuove contribuzione alla Storia Naturale delle Ascidie
Composite del Golfo di Napoli. Atti. Accad. Mem. Lincei (3) 10: 70 pp.,
10 pls.

— 1900. Osservazioni intorno alle migrazioni delle colonie di Diplosoma listeri.
Monit. zool. ital. 11 : 33-34.

— 1901. Interno ai movimento delle appendici ectodermiche del Diplosoma
listeri. Rend. Accad. Sci. fis. mat., Napoli 1901 : 172

— 1901. Di alcune particularita osservate nelle Ascidie de Golfo di Napoli. i.
Diversa maniera di origine della nuove colonie di Diplosoma listeri. ii.
Migrazione della Ciona intestinalis. Monit. zool. ital. 12 : 186-188

— 1908. Osservazioni su alcune Ascidie del Golfo di Napoli. Atti. Accad. Sci.
fis. mat., Napoli (2) 13 : 1-89, pls. 1-5

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253

THRIX DOHERTY, 1891 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, LYCAENIDAE):
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE
PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1768

By Lt. Col. C. F. Cowan
(Little Gaddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts, England)

The generic name Thrix was based by Doherty (1891 : 35) on the very
distinctive males from Malaya (and Sumatra) of an insect which he misidentified
as Neocheritra gama Distant (1886 : 462, fig.) from Malaya, of which only the
female was then known.

His error was not rectified till Corbet (op. posth. 1948 : 96) pointed out that,
among other details, the true male of gama Distant had a normal smooth fore-
wing upperside, unlike Doherty’s males with their distinctive large orange-pink
brush; moreover the true gama male lacked the fifth subcostal vein in the fore-
wing described for Thrix by Doherty, a vein which the latter had correctly
guessed would be found lacking in the females of both species.

In fact the male of gama Distant had been well described under the name
Sithon teunga Grose Smith (1889 : 317) from Kina Balu, N.E. Borneo; a name
which has almost but not quite been lost and of which /icinius H. H. Druce
(1896 : 677, fig.), type-species of Mantoides H. H. Druce (idem) from the same
place isa synonym. A third subspecies to gama and teunga is Thrix myrmecus
Seitz (1926 : 992, fig.) from “ Borneo ”’, and a fourth Jacoona maga Corbet (l.c.)
from Burma. Seitz said Thrix bore the tuft but included in it both gama and
licinius myrmecus; he lost Mantoides and could not place teunga (l.c. : 991).

Reverting to Thrix gama sens. Doherty nec Distant, with the unique tuft-
bearing males; there are again four named taxa. The earliest which conforms
in structure to Doherty’s males was Hypolycaena cloella Weymer (1887 : 10, fig.)
from Nias Island, and the second Neocheritra nisibis deNicéville (1895 : 316, 9,
fig.) from Malaya (and Sumatra). But earlier Sithon scopula H. Druce (1873 :
352, poor fig.) had been described from Borneo, and finally Virgarina scopula
sankilia Fruhstorfer (1913 : 175) came from S.E. Borneo. Surprisingly, males
of the last two always lack the extra costal vein on the forewing, but their appear-
ance is similar and the tuft is borne. Certainly the first two are conspecific
and it is arguable (vide Corbet I.c., and I agree) that the third and senior taxon,
and likewise the fourth, are too. It happens that a further genus, Virgarina
H. H. Druce (1895 : 606), was created for scopula. Seitz lost sankilia, but
included the rest in Thrix.

Corbet (l.c.) placed seven small genera whose males are diverse in the one
genus Jacoona Distant (1884 : 233, 241), finding the females structurally similar.
This is not necessarily a universally acceptable view, however, and it is most
desirable to rectify the anomaly of the type-species of Thrix against the time
when a detailed revison of the tribe can be undertaken.

Treated literally, true gama Distant would be the type-species of Thrix
Doherty, rendering Mantoides H. H. Druce a subjective synonym.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Treated factually, either scopula, cloella, or nisibis should be selected.
Corbet suggested scopula. As Doherty had before him Malayan specimens,
nisibis is preferable, the more so since scopula, as we have seen, is slightly
aberrant. The only weakness of nisibis is that it was described from two females
only. But there is no doubt now on the identity of this well illustrated taxon.
The result of fixing nisibis deNicéville as the type-species of Thrix Doherty
would be to render Virgarina H. H. Druce a subjective synonym. It is already
so regarded (Corbet l.c., et al.), and has not been used for over SO years.

It is preferable, for stability, and incidentally preserving Mantoides which is
still in use, to treat this problem factually by recognising Doherty’s misidentifi-
cation and adopting nisibis as the type-species of Thrix, rather than literally,
perpetuating the misidentification and adhering to gama as the type-species.
The Greek feminine word @p.C, anyway, means the hair or beard, so is most
appropriate to nisibis but quite absurd for the smooth-faced gama.

The International Commission is therefore requested to take the following
action:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
the genus Thrix Doherty, 1891, made prior to the ruling now proposed
and, having done so, to designate as type-species of that genus the
species Neocheritra nisibis deNicéville, 1895;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic
name Thrix Doherty, 1891, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 60 (2) : 35 (gender :
feminine), type-species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)
above, Neocherita nisibis deNicéville, 1895, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc.
9°. S16; pl. Py fe. '45:

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific
name nisibis deNicéville, 1895, as published in the binomen Neo-
cheritra nisibis (type-species of Thrix Doherty 1891).

REFERENCES
CorsBeT, A. S. 1948. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 17
DisTANT, W. L. 1882-6. Rhop. Malayana London
Douerty, W. 1891. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 60 (2)
Druce, H. 1873. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1873
Druce, H.H. 1895. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1895 (3). (October)
— 1896. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1896
FRUHSTORFER, H. 1913. Dt. ent. Z. Iris 27 (4)
Grose SMITH, H. 1889. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 3
DE NICEVILLE, L. 1895. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 9. (3). (March)
Seitz, A. 1926. Grossschmett. Erde 9. Stuttgart
WeEyYMER, G. 1887. Stettin. ent. Z. 48

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255

ATTUS OBSCURUS TACZANOWSKI, 1872 (ARANEAE): PROPOSED
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF
CYRENE BULBOSA CAMBRIDGE, 1901. Z.N.(S.) 1770

By Maria Elena Galiano (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘ Bernardino
Rivadavia”’, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

The purpose of the present application is to ask that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suppress
the specific name Evophrys obscura (Taczanowski, 1872) as a nomen oblitum,
and to validate the more modern synonym Freya bulbosa (Cambridge, 1901).

2. LEvophrys obscura was described originally as Attus obscurus by Taczan-
owski in 1872 (Horae Soc. ent. Ross. 8 : 84) and it was the same author who
created the new combination Evophrys obscurus in 1878 (Bull. Soc. imp. Nat.
Moscou 53 : 289). Under this name it was cited in two catalogues: Petrunke-
vitch, 1911, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 29, : 648, and Bonnet, 1956, Biblio-
graphia Araneorum, 1956 : 1884 (obscura).

3. A study of the type-specimen, deposited in the Zoological Institut of the
Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa, has shown that the same species was
described later under the name Cyrene bulbosa Cambridge, 1901, (Biol. Centr.
Amer. Arach. 2 : 231, tab 18, fig. 16). Cyrene Peckham, 1894, having been
considered as a synonym of Freya Koch, 1850, a combination Freya bulbosa was
established. Under this name it was cited in successive years in the following
publications:

1911 Petrunkevitch, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 29 : 653 (n. comb.).

1925 Petrunkevitch, Trans. Connect. Acad. Arts Sci. 27 : 81.

1946 Chickering, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Harvard 97 : 174, fig. 149, 150 (re-
description).

1956 Bonnet, Bibl. Aran. III (2) : 1919.

1961 Galiano, Com. Mus. Arg. Cien. Nat. Zool. 11 (6) : 169 (= Chira luctuosa

Simon).

1963 Galiano, Physis 23 (66) : 323, tab 14, fig. 15 & 16.

4. On the other hand Evophrys obscura (Tacz.) the senior synonym, has
remained unused in the primary literature for more than fifty years.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
requested to take the following action:

(1) to use it plenary powers to suppress the specific name obscurus Taczanow-
ski, 1872, as published in the binomen Afttus obscurus, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy;

(2) to place the specific name bulbosa Cambridge, 1901, as published in the
binomen Cyrene bulbosa, on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name obscurus Taczanowski, 1872, as published in the
binomen Attus obscurus, as suppressed in (1) above, on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HYPAEUS SIMON, 1900 (ARANEAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF

A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N((S.) 1771

By Maria Elena Galiano (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “ Bernardino
Rivadavia”’, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

This is a case of mis-identification of the type-species by the original author
of the genus, which should be corrected under Articles 67(j) and 70(a).

2. When Simon, in 1900, established the genus Hypaeus (Ann. Soc. ent.
France 69 : 42) he designated as the type-species Attus porcatus Taczanowski,
1872, establishing the combination Hypaeus porcatus.

A study of the type-specimen of Attus porcatus Taczanowski which is pre-
served in the Zoological Institute of the Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa, as
well as the specimen actually named by Simon as Attus porcatus, showed that
this author made a mistake when identifying Taczanowski’s species. The
specimen he had before him when founding the genus Hypaeus belonged to
another species which was later described under the name Acragas taczanowskii
by Mello-Leitdo in 1948 (An. Acad. Brasil Cien. 20(2) : 187, fig. 27). Although
specifically distinct from Hypaeus taczanowskii (Mello-Leitéo, 1948), Attus
porcatus Taczanowski, 1872, belongs to the same genus, so should retain its name
Hypaeus porcatus (Taczanowski, 1872 non Simon, 1900).

3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
requested:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for
the nominal genus Hypaeus Simon, 1900, made prior to the Ruling now
requested and, having done so, to designate Acragas taczanowskii
Mello-Leitdo, 1948, to be the type-species of that genus;

(2) to place the generic name Hypaeus Simon, 1900 (gender : masculine),
type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above,
Acragas taczanowskii Mello-Leitéo, 1948, on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name taczanowskii Mello-Leitdo, 1948, as published
in the binomen Acragas taczanowskii (type-species of Hypaeus Simon,
1900) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 5. December 1966.

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director)

Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E.
Prof. Dr. R. Sparck

Dr. N. R. Stoll

Mr. C. W. Wright

Dr. G. F. de Witte

B. The Officers of the Trust

W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller)

Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

Decisions of the Commission
Declaration 42
Opinion 784 (Cardinalis Bona! 1838) .

Opinion 785 (Pseudosquilla Dana and Cease Berthold) Re

Opinion 786 (Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923)

Opinion 787 (Baetis [Leach, 1815]) .

Opinion 788 (Megalopta Smith, 1853)

Opinion 789 (Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge, 1808) :
Opinion 790 (Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime [1850])
Opinion 791 (Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949)
Opinion 792 (Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801)

Opinion 793 (Nana Schumacher, 1817)

Opinion 794 (Spalerosophis Jan, 1865)

New Cases

Salpa Edwards, 1771 (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary
powers in favour of Salpa Forskal, 1775, together with the designa-
tion of a type-species for Thalia Blumenbach, 1798 aE

Thaliacea) (J. P. Waal)

Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed designation of a a

type-species under the plenary powers (V. M. Dirsh) .

Proteinus Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed designation of
a type-species under the plenary powers (J. Jelinek & W. O. Steel) .
Musca lateralis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression

under the plenary powers (A. C. Pont & J. G. Chillcott)

Page
198
201
204
207
209
211
213
221
223
225
227
229

232
235
239

241

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Application to place on the Official Index of Rejected Names in
Zoology, the generic name Ratton and the specific names R. agreste,
R. blancodebaxo, R. colibreve, R. espinoso, and R. tucotuco, dated
from Brants, 1827 (Alfredo Langguth).

Diplosoma Macdonald, 1859 (Ascideacea): Proposed validation under
the plenary powers (F. W. E. Rowe) ..

Thrix Doherty, 1891 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of 2 a
type-species under the plenary powers (C. F. Cowan) :

Attus obscurus Taczanowski, 1852 (Araneae): Proposed suppression
under the plenary powers in favour of Cyrene bulbosa Cambridge,
1901 (Maria Elena Galiano) ..

Hypaeus Simon, 1900 (Araneae): Proposed designation of a type-species
under the plenary powers (Maria Elena Galiano) <4 <2

Comments

Comment on the proposal to give Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947,
priority as from 1876 (R. V. Melville) . :

Comment on CHRYSOPINAE in Neuroptera and Diptera (Curtis Ww.
Sabrosky) .

Comment on the proposed designation of a a type-species for Phlaeothrips
under the plenary powers (L. J. Stannard) :

Comment on proposed emendation of the Code to cover designation of
types from doubtfully syntypical material (Ernst Mayr)

On Dr. Sabrosky’s opposition to the proposed designation of a type-
species for Phasia Latreille (B. Herting) ef y 4

© 1966. Tue INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment

Page

243
245

253

255
256

194
194
195
195

196

BNNs re

NAT.
2 9 DECI 966

, PURCHASED &
ra :

Volume 23, Part 6 &,
pp. 257-308, T.P.-XIl y ey

r
a»
2
@

30th December 1966

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page
Translations of the Code _.... ee He oe vn ag A505 ek
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:

Date of commencement by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications eee

in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oe A cco WOE
Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on

\ Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 257

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature

and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1.

1966

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Acting President: Dr. L. B. HoLttuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (28 August 1963)

Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London,
S.W.7) (31 May 1960)

Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)

B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16
December 1954)

Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)

Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(23 July 1958)

Dr. Henning LeMcueE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)

Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)

Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (23 July 1958)

Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958)

Dr. D. V. OBRUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.)
(5 November 1958)

areca Tohru Ucuipa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March
1959

Professor Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain)
(31 May 1960)

Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960 (Secretary)

Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa,
Canada) (9 June 1961) (Councillor)

Dr. W. E. SG (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant
Secretary

Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962)

Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963)

Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans,
Louisiana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Norman R. Sto. (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
(Councillor)

Dr. L. B. Hottrnuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
(28 August 1963) (Acting President)

Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor)

Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963)
(Councillor)

Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla
California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., Germany)
(28 August 1963)

Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)

Dr. Curtis W. SABRosKy (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

—— a a es
Volume 23, Part 6 (pp. 257-308, T.P.-XII) 30th December 1966

—————— a ee
Translations of the Code

The International Code on Zoological Nomenclature is now available in the
following translations: Bulgarian 1962; Czech 1962; German 1962; Japanese
1965; Mexican 1962; Polish 1963; Russian 1966: Spanish 1962.

NOTICES

(a) Date of Commencement of Voting.—In normal circumstances the
Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on the application in the present part is
invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Com-
mission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat
before the close of the six-month period.

(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission
of its plenary powers is involved in the following application published in the
present part of the Bulletin:

Designation of a neotype for Opopsitta marshalli Iredale, 1946 (Aves).

Z.N.(S.) 1773.
c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA
Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary
London, S.W.7, England International Commission on
November 1966 Zoological Nomenclature

™

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMISSION
REGARDING THE CLARIFICATION OF
CODE ARTICLE 23b

Article 23b has been a most controversial one right from its first proposal by
Commissioners E. Mayr and L. B. Holthuis during the XVth International
Congress of Zoology held in London in August 1958. The original wording of
the Article was such that it was not clearly understood by most zoologists and
was interpreted in different ways, causing thereby much confusion and starting
many (often unnecessary) controversies. The Editorial Committee of the Code
after long discussions decided that any attempt to improve the wording might be
construed as changing the meaning of the Article, which even to the Committee
was not quite clear in its details. In order to avoid any reproach of tampering
with the meaning of the Article, the Committee decided to place it in the Code
in the wording of the original proposal of 1958.

2. The Secretariat of the Commission, not being able to give a satisfactory
interpretation of the Article either, deferred handling of cases involving this
Article until after the XVIth International Congress of Zoology held in
Washington in 1963, in the hope that during that Congress a solution for this
situation would be found.

3. Prior to the XVIth International Congress of Zoology, four criticisms of
Article 23b and requests for its amendment were received from President J.
Chester Bradley, Prof. Hobart M. Smith, Commissioner L. B. Holthuis, and
Dr. M. W. R. de V. Graham. These criticisms were published in Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 19 : 345-352 on 29 December 1962 as Case 3 for discussion at the
forthcoming Congress. Proposals requesting deletion of the Article from the
Code were made by Dr. J. R. Vockeroth and the Committee on Nomenclature of
the Entomological Society of America (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 79-80). The
case was placed on the Agenda of Commission meetings at the Washington
Congress and was debated at length.

4. In an endeavour to avoid amendments to the Code, Dr. K. H. L. Key
proposed, during the Washington meeting, that the Commission should issue
an interpretive Declaration on Article 23b, taking into account the following
points:

(1) The expression “ unused as a senior synonym” implies that a junior
synonym was in existence throughout the period concerned (otherwise the
senior name could not be designated a “‘ synonym”), although the state of
synonymy need not (and ordinarily would not) have been recognized as such.

(2) Use in the “ primary zoological literature” should be taken to mean
application of the name in question to a particular taxon in a zoological publica-
tion. It does not include the citation of the name in synonymy, or mere listing
of the name in any abstracting publication, index, catalogue, check-list, or
nomenclator.

(3) The expression “‘ for more than fifty years’ should be read to mean
“for more than fifty years during which the junior synonym had been used on
ten or more occasions in the primary literature for the taxon concerned”.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259

(4) The word “ discovers ” must be rigidly construed: i.e. it implies that the
name discovered after 1960 had remained unused during the whole of the 50-
year period immediately preceding its ‘“‘ discovery ”’.

(5) Use of a nomen oblitum in the primary literature in violation of Article
23b does not qualify as use for the purpose of the Article.

(6) Article 23b(i) clearly gives the Commission the authority (without
invoking the plenary powers) to suppress a nomen oblitum for the purposes of the
Law of Priority, the Law of Homonymy, or both, or alternatively to validate it.
However, it should not be read as imposing an obligation on the Commission to
place a rejected nomen oblitum on the appropriate Official Index.

Dr. Key’s motion was rejected by 11 votes to 10.

5. Dr. Lemche moved that the Secretariat be charged to test Article 23b as
explained by Dr. Key and refer back to the Commission as to how that Article
should be amended and modified by a Declaration. This proposal was accepted
by the Commission by 14 votes to 7. A motion for the deletion of Article 23b
was defeated by 11 votes to 10.

6. After the Congress the Secretariat was instructed by President Alden H.
Miller to draft an interpretive Declaration on the lines of Dr. Key’s six points.
This interpretation was drawn up by the Assistant Secretary in consultation with
Prof. Ernst Mayr and was finally submitted to the Commission on Voting Paper
(O.M.)(65)1, issued on 26 March 1965 under the One-Month Rule. At the
close of the Voting Period on 26 April 1965 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—eight (8), received in the following order: Mertens, Mayr,
Stoll, Obruchev, Alvarado, Uchida, Miller, Jaczewski.

Negative votes—nine (9): China, Holthuis, Vokes, Kraus, Boschma, Ride,
Simpson, Sabrosky, Evans.

Voting Papers not returned—seven (7): Binder, Borchsenius, Brinck, Hubbs,
Munroe, Riley, Tortonese.

Commissioners Lemche, Forest, do Amaral and Bonnet returned late
affirmative votes.

7. In the meantime the Nomenclature Section of the XIIth International
Congress of Entomology, London, 1964, had voted unanimously for a Resolu-
tion, proposed and drawn up by Commissioner C. W. Sabrosky, as follows:

Whereas, priority, beginning with Jan. 1, 1758, is the basic principle of
entomological nomenclature as it is of zoological nomenclature in general;
and

Whereas, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
has Plenary Powers to suspend the application of the International Code of

Zoological Nomenclature for the purposes of promoting stability and

universality, or of avoiding serious confusion; and

Whereas, these Plenary Powers suffice for the truly serious cases of con-
fusion or of long usage of biologically important names; and

Whereas the new Code contains “escape clauses’’, such as those
concerned with family names, that are aimed at promoting stability in
various aspects of nomenclature without either application of Article 23b

(the so-called 50-year rule) or use of the plenary powers; but

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Whereas, Article 23b, the Limitation on the Law of Priority, is con-
sidered to have serious weaknesses and in its present form to be objectionable
and unnecessary to entomology, and even actually detrimental to it, to a
degree that could not be remedied by any mere interpretive declaration;

Therefore, be it resolved that the XIIth International Congress of
Entomology directs the Permanent Committee of the International Congress
of Entomology to propose and strongly recommend to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that the field of entomology, in
the broad sense, be exempted from the provisions of paragraph b of
Article 23 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. For the
purposes of this resolution entomology in the broad sense is defined as the
study of Hexapoda, Arachnida, and Myriapoda.

This resolution was submitted to the Secretary of the Congresses Committee
who ultimately sent it to the Secretary of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature. It was immediately forwarded to the President and
Council of the Commission. The Secretary was instructed by President Miller,
on behalf of the Council, not to publish the Resolution until an interpretive
Declaration on Article 23b had been published for one year.

8. On the recommendation of the Secretary, Dr. G. Owen Evans, the
President decided to establish a committee of specialists in taxonomy to study
Article 23b and to investigate the difficulties in its application. Unfortunately
the sudden death of President Miller delayed proceedings in this matter, but the
Acting President Dr. Holthuis, has since appointed a committee with Prof. E.
Mayr (Cambridge, Mass.) as Chairman. The members of the Committee are
Mr. W. I. Follett (San Francisco), M. Jacques Forest (Paris), Prof. Dr. A.
Kaestner (Munich), Dr. K. H. L. Key (Canberra), Mr. R. V. Melville (London)
and Mr. P. E. S. Whalley (London). This Committee has already started its
deliberations.

9. In November 1965 Commissioner Dr. Otto Kraus proposed that Article
23b should be suspended until the end of the next meeting of the Commission,
when the investigating committee could be expected to submit its findings. The
Acting President, Dr. L. B. Holthuis, decided to submit this proposal to the
Commission.

10. On 25 February 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to
vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.)(66)1 either for or
against “‘ the suspension of Article 23b until the end of the next meeting of the
Commission”. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 25 April 1966
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—fourteen (14): China, Evans, Boschma, Holthuis,
Lemche, Tortonese, Vokes, Munroe, Kraus, Uchida, Jaczewski, Bonnet,
do Amaral, Ride.

Negative votes—eight (8): Brinck, Simpson, Stoll, Mertens, Obruchev,
Binder, Hubbs, Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Alvarado, Forest.

Commissioner Mayr declined to vote (see note below).

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261

Dr. Henning Lemche: “ When, in the thirties, there was a very strong
motion—especially among entomologists—in favour of some automatic proce-
dure to avoid name changes, there was no other alternative than strict priority
which evidently was more confusing than anything else. The background for
my proposal of such an article as that now to be suspended (in 1948, and
simultaneously with that by Prof. Bonnet) was this move away from strict
priority. The consequent development of this problem through all of the
following Congresses has provided us with a Preamble to the Code of the utmost
importance, as it states the purpose of obtaining stability as the one to which all
other measures aim. Hence, a special paragraph on automatic rejection of
forgotten names has lost much of its importance.

** Also, as the means by which this purpose can be automatically obtained is
so extremely simple that almost no zoologist accustomed to priority-thinking
can grasp it, it is better not to keep such a paragraph at all and stick to the
Preamble as such.

** Tam not quite sure that it is legal for the Commission, between Congresses,
to act on general problems like the present one, but I would rather look away
from formalities if zoologists can unite in some sensible manner in reaching an
arrangement that would put an end to the present intolerable situation.”

Prof. Per Brinck: “1 certainly understand the proposal that Article 23b
should be suspended until the next meeting of the Commission. But for two
reasons I am unable to vote for such a suspension:

1. The Washington Congress instructed the Commission to draft a Declara-
tion on the Article, not to delete it.

2. From a practical point of view it is extremely unhappy to suspend part of
the Rules for certain periods. What will happen with decisions based
on its wording, now valid, when the part in question is invalid for some
time, later to be changed in one or the other direction (if changed)?
Taxonomic work goes on and we all know that a firm stability is the
only way to get people in the position that they are ready to apply
the Rules.

“If we start distributing information that part of the Rules (Article 23b) is
temporarily suspended, I am afraid this will not reach the bulk of taxonomists
until a report on the Article in question is ready and I hope accepted. Finally,
if the Commission votes in favour of a temporary suspension it should not be
effected until a new edition of the Code is prepared.”

Prof. G. G. Simpson: “1 strongly object to this proposal, to its being sub-
mitted at all, and to the way in which it is submitted.

1. To suspend temporarily an article that has been in effect for several years
and that would in all likelihood be returned to effect is a large step
towards chaos.

“= 2. The Commission does not have authority to suspend all applications of
any part of the Code. Such authority (Article 79) is explicitly limited
‘to a particular case’.

3. I question both the legality and the wisdom of the procedure being

followed, for example in requiring a one-month vote.

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. Legal quibbles aside, this matter has been settled: the Commission did
approve a previous interpretive Declaration.

5. I do not personally agree that Article 23b in its present form is unwork-
able, although it is evident that it needs explanation for the benefit of
some workers.”

Prof. Robert Mertens: “1 think it is foolish to vote now for or against the
suspension of Article 23b after a Declaration has been adopted by the Com-
mission. Such a proposal should not be voted on before the next International
Congress of Zoology to avoid unfortunate discontinuity for the validity of the
Rules.”

Prof. Ernst Mayr: “ It would seem to me that the Voting Paper (O.M.)(66)1
is contrary to the Code, to the Constitution and to the Bylaws of the Commission
and therefore invalid and void.

“* The authority to suspend a part of the Code is not given to the Commission
either in Article 87 or in Articles 77(3) or 78a.

** Furthermore, the proposal to suspend Article 23b is not an individual
“nomenclatural case’ which the Secretary can submit directly to the Com-
mission, according to Section III B2 of the Bylaws of the Commission, but
amounts to an amendment of the Code, which according to the Bylaws must
first be submitted to the Council (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 6-7 B(2)). Further-
more, it is contrary to the Bylaws to submit a new matter for a one-month vote
(Bylaws III C11).

““T suspect that all 12 votes in favour of the Declaration (explaining Article
23b) arrived within the 3 month period specified for such votes in the Bylaws and
that therefore the Declaration was actually validly adopted by the Commission.
However, even if 4 votes would have to be disallowed for a technicality, the
actual sentiment of the Commission is 12 to 19 in favour of the Declaration.
Furthermore, one of the Commissioners who voted against the wording of the
Declaration, emphasized to me that he was in favour of Article 23b and only
voted against the particular wording of the Declaration. These facts are in
conflict with your statement in the Note accompanying Voting Paper (O.M.)
(66)1: ‘The Commission... evidently is equally dissatisfied with the Inter-
pretive Declaration to this [23b] Article.’

“* When the Committee is appointed that will undertake a fact finding survey
concerning Article 23b, it will be most important that this article is in force so
that the Secretariat can bring situations to the attention of the Committee in
which application of 23b would cause difficulties. Suspension of Article 23b
would make it far more difficult for the Committee to gather such evidence.

** Also it seems to me that the suggestion contained in this ballot is not in the
best interest of the principle of stability embodied in the Preamble. The
impression is emerging that Article 23b is particularly beneficial in the more
mature branches of zoology, those with a more or less stabilized nomenclature.
As a statute of limitations, it prohibits the automatic replacement of a well
established name by aforgottenname. Thus it shifts the burden of work to him
who unearths long forgotten names and relieves the busy zoologist of the burden
to protect well-known names. In this role Article 23b has worked excellently
and has greatly facilitated the preservation of a stable nomenclature in the more

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263

mature areas of systematic zoology. I know of no case in which Article 23b
has not been beneficial in the taxonomically more mature systematic groups.

“It is claimed that Article 23b is useless in taxonomic groups in which there
are no generally accepted monographs or revisions, and where at best only lists
of nominal species exist. Further investigations must be undertaken to sub-
Stantiate these claims. At the Washington Congress Dr. China reported that a
number of cases had come to the Secretariat in which application of Article 23b
would cause real difficulties. It is now several years since Washington and the
Secretary has not yet brought these cases to the attention of the Commission.
The only published case known to me turned out to be based on misconceptions
(Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 13 (6) : 509). It would seem to me nothing short of tragic
if the highly beneficial Article 23b were suspended on the basis of unsupported,
hearsay evidence.

“ Finally, an important point must be mentioned. The suspension vote
had asked that Article 23b be suspended ‘ until the end of the next meeting of
the Commission ’. This might be catastrophic since at present no next meeting
of the Commission is in sight. All attempts for the organization of the next
Congress have so far failed. The wording of the Suspension Vote might
tie the hands of the Commission for an insufferably long time.

“To sum up,

1. the Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 violates the provisions of the Bylaws of

the Commission and is therefore illegal and invalid.

2. the suggestion to suspend Article 23b discriminates exactly against those
branches of zoology where the availability of this article has been most
beneficial. The suspension therefore would be most unwise.

3. the evidence indicates that the original Voting Paper was validly adopted
by the Commission.”

Mr. C. W. Sabrosky: “I raise a point of order against this vote. The
Commission was instructed by the last (XVIth) International Congress of
Zoology to prepare an interpretive Declaration on Article 23b, which the
Commission and Congress voted to retain in the Code. To do otherwise at
this time is to evade our responsibility and thwart the expressed instructions.

“T believe the Commission is duty bound, by the decisions of the last
Congress, (1) to leave Article 23b in effect in the Code, and (2) to issue an
interpretive Declaration concerning it.

“One cannot say that the Commission was really dissatisfied with the
proposed Declaration when 12 favoured against 9 opposed, although granted that
four of the affirmative votes were late. What should have been done was to
proceed at once to revise the proposed Declaration in the light of any comments
from Commissioners (I submitted a number, for example) and to resubmit a
draft. I cannot agree that failure of only one draft means a deadlock.

“* Under your first alternative, note that deletion of 23b from the Code is not
requested by the resolution from the XIIth International Congress of Ento-
mology. That resolution presumed that 23b will remain in the Code; it merely
proposes that it not apply to the field of entomology.

“ Lalso object to the proposed action on the ground that it will, presumably,
defer action on the entomologists’ resolution until the next meeting of the Com-

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

mission, and publication and consideration of this resolution has already been
blocked an unseemly time. I would point out, furthermore, that from indica-
tions the next meeting of the Commission may be in a far off country, poorly
attended, and an inadequate forum for discussion.”

Dr. W. D. L. Ride: “ 1 would hope that the Commission will issue a recom-
mendation to zoologists discovering names likely to upset established nomen-
clature to refer them to the Commission with an appropriate recommendation
for action under the plenary powers.”

11. Dr. Mayr’s letter questioning the validity of the vote on V.P.(O.M.)(66)1
and the validity of the action in suspending Article 23b was answered by Dr.
L. B. Holthuis and by Dr. Otto Kraus, whose letters to Dr. Mayr are reproduced
below.

Dr. L. B. Holthuis: “* 1 am sorry to learn that you think the action asked for
under V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 to be invalid and void, for which you cite Article 87 and
Articles 77(3) and 78a of the Code. Iam afraid that I cannot agree with you on
this matter. Article 77(3) and (2) state clearly that the Commission is charged
“to render between successive Congresses Declarations (i.e., provisional
amendments to the Code) embodying ’ ‘ recommendations for the clarification
or the modification of the Code’. It is exactly such a Declaration that is asked
for under V.P.(O.M.)(66)1. Under Article 78a(i) such a Declaration of the
Commission remains in force (even if it is only a proposal) until the next
Congress ratifies it or rejects it; only the Congress can make the proposal a
definite decision (Art. 87). Though the Commission indeed has no authority
to suspend part of the Code, it does have the authority to propose to the
Congress such a suspension, which proposal has to be accepted by zoologists at
least until the Congress itself can act on it. Therefore the action proposed
under V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 is fully covered by the Code.

“As to your second point, the secretariat informs me that they have inter-
preted Bylaws III B(2) as applicable only in cases where the wording or the sense
of an existing Article is changed; the Council in fact acting as a watchdog for
correct pseudo-legalistic terminology. No such change of wording is con-
templated in this case: suspension as opposed to deletion, is not an amendment
in the sense of Art. III B(2). This seems a very sensible opinion to me, and
therefore I do not consider Voting Paper (O.M.)(66)1 invalid.

“ As to the third point raised in your letter, the vote (V.P.(O.M.)(65)1) on
the Declaration explaining Article 23b was plainly marked as a one-month vote,
and consequently any votes received after the one-month deadline are invalid.
If you think that this vote was incorrectly treated as a one-month vote, you might
request its entire cancellation, though I do not see why you (nor any of the other
Commissioners for that matter) did not object to the one-month deadline before,
and even did cast your vote uponit. It seems that by casting their votes without
protest the Commissioners (including yourself) accepted the procedure as
correct. However, if you think, now that the votes have been cast and the out-
come is known, that this outcome should not be accepted, the only thing that
you can do is to request a new vote and have the old vote declared void. It is
impossible to change this one-month vote retroactively to a three-month vote.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265

“In your fourth paragraph you challenge my words that the Commission
was dissatisfied with the wording of the Declaration dealt with in the previous
paragraph. When 9 Commissioners vote against this wording, even if 12 vote
for it, I cannot see that the Commission is satisfied with this wording. The more
SO as some who voted in favour may have done so, not because the new wording
satisfied them, but only because they thought it better than the old.

“In the last paragraph of the first page of your letter you object to the
suspension of Article 23b as this would make the work of the Committee
charged with the study of the Article more difficult. Since the Article as it now
stands is unworkable, its presence in the Code is only a source of confusion and
disagreement. No two zoologists seem to agree as to the interpretation of the
Article. Therefore it seems imperative to me that as long as the Article and its
correct wording and interpretation form the subject of study by a special
Committee, it cannot be used until this Committee has decided how it has to be
used and interpreted. As to the evidence available to the Committee, there is
plenty already available, while at the request of the Committee zoologists can
furnish them with more material even if the article is suspended. It seems
illogical to have an article in force about the meaning of which nobody seems to
agree and which for just that reason is made the subject of a special investigation.

“In the first two paragraphs of page 2 of your letter you make it look as
though the temporary suspension of Article 23b is directed against the principle
behind it. Nothing is less true. It is only because the wording of the article as
it stands now makes it unworkable that the article has to be suspended until a
satisfactory wording is found. I am sure that there is no zoologist who is not
willing to accept the statute of limitation once the wording is clear and un-
equivocal. Those wanting to reject it are only of the opinion that no such
wording is possible. It is up to the Committee to prove them wrong. In the
time that Article 23b is suspended, any zoologist who finds what he considers a
forgotten name, may submit it to the Commission to be suppressed under the
normal plenary powers procedure. Any zoologist who notices that another
zoologist uses such a forgotten name, may likewise apply to the Commission for
its suppression. In this way the spirit of Article 23b can still be exercised in
spite of its temporary suspension.

“ The suspension of Article 23b was expressly asked for ‘ until the end of the
next meeting of the Commission’. This wording has been intentionally chosen.
As the secretariat is aware that the next Zoological Congress might be postponed
for one or two years no mention of such a Congress was made here. The term
* next meeting of the Commission ’ has been deliberately used as the secretariat
is investigating the possibilities of having a meeting of the Commission before the
next Congress.

“The secretariat whom I have consulted in this matter agrees with the
conclusions reached.

“Tam most sorry that you feel that the action proposed under V.P.(O.M.)
(66)1 was not legal and I hope that the above may help to show that the course
adopted is technically legal and the best one that can be followed under the
circumstances. The most important thing is to have the question of Article 23b
resolved once and for all to the satisfaction of the great majority of zoologists

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and I hope that the Committee that is to be installed to study this Article, will
now have its hands free to decide very carefully on the best solution for this
problem which forms such a severe threat to the unity of zoological nomen-
clature.”’

Dr. Otto Kraus: “ Bei der Diskussion der Probleme des Artikel 23b miissen
zwei Fragenkomplexr unterschieden und getrennt behandelt werden:

(a) Die formale, ‘ juristische’ Situation, insbesondere in Verbindung mit

dem V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 und

(b) die derzeitige praktische Situation von Artikel 23b.

Ich kann nicht umhin, Punkt (b) noch gréfere Bedeutung beizumessen als
Punkt (a).

** Zu (a): Sie bezeichnen V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 als ‘ contrary to the Code, to the
Constitution and to the Bylaws of the Commission and therefore invalid and
void’. Dabei beziehen Sie sich auf ITZN Artikel 77(3), 78(a) und 87 und auf
die Abschnitte IIIB(2) und IIIC(11) der * Bylaws’.

“Thre Argumentation scheint auf den ersten Blick schliissig. Ich bin
jedoch der Meinung, da man—auf Grund der zitierten Vorschriften—zu einer
absolut gegenteiligen Beurteilung gelangen muss oder doch zumindest kann.

1. GemaB IRZN Artikel 77(3) hat die ICZN sehr wohl das Recht, ‘ vor-
laufige Anderungen der Regeln’ zu beschlieBen. Der jetzt vor-
geschlagene Modus einer Suspension geht in geradezu idealer Weise
mit dem Wortlaut von Artikel 77(3) konform.

2. GemaB IRZN Artikel 78(a) bezieht sich der Fall [‘ case ’] ‘ Artikel 23b’
auf eine Situation, die in den Regeln ‘ nicht in . . . hinreichender Weise
vorgesehen ist’. Darunter verstehe ich die praktische Anwendung
des ‘Statute of Limitation’. Auch hier besteht kein erkennbarer
Gegensatz zwischen V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 und dem Wortlaut des Artikels.

3. IRZN Artikel 87 ist fiir die jetzige Diskussion bedeutungslos. Er besagt,
daB Anderungen der Regeln nur durch einen Internationalen KongreB
vorgenommen werden diirfen. Mit V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 steht jedoch
iiberhaupt keine [definitive] ‘ Anderung der Regeln’ zur Debatte: es
handelt sich vielmehr um eine ‘ vorlaufige Anderung der Regeln’ durch
die ICZN, die geméi8 IRZN Artikel 77(3)—vgl. Punkt (1), oben—
zulassig ist.

4. Das jetzige V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 ist der ICZN insofern konform mit Sektion
I1IB(2) der *‘ Bylaws’ unterbreitet worden, als es sich um eine Vorlage
des Prasidenten (und nicht des Sekretiars) handelt.

Ich muB weiterhin—bis zum Nachweis des Gegenteils—unterstellen,
daB der Prasident, Herr Dr. L. B. Holthuis, das ‘ Council’ in der
vorgeschriebenen Weise hinzugezogen hat. In diesem Zusammen-
hang ist der Hinweis wichtig, daB das ‘ Council’ lediglich iiber den
Wortlaut eines Vorschlages zu befinden hat, nicht aber iiber dessen
grundsatzliche Zulassung oder Ablehnung; die Funktion des ‘ Council ’
ist damit ausdriicklich auf technische Details beschrankt.

5. V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 steht auch nicht im Gegensatz zu Sektion IIIC(11) der
‘Bylaws’. Der Fall [‘ case’] ‘ Artikel 23b’ kann jetzt, nach der
vorangegangenen unbefriedigenden Abstimmung, ohne weiteres und

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267

damit véllig legal als ‘ second vote’ mit nur einer ‘ one month voting
period ’ behandelt werden (vgl. auch Sektion IITC(12)).

“Zu (b): Die derartige praktische Situation von Artikel 23b ist in dem
Begleitschreiben des Prisidenten—zu V.P.(O.M.)(66)1— derart klar und treffend
geschildert worden, daB ich dem nur wenig hinzuzufiigen habe.

1. Die Situation von Artikel 23b steht inzwischen in schroffem Gegensatz
zur Praéambel der IRZN (Absatz 2): “Es ist Sinn der Regeln, die
Stabilitat und Universalitit wissenschaftlicher Tiernamen zu for-
dern...’. Eine derart umstrittene Bestimmung, der die Basis einer
tragenden Mehrheit absolut fehlt, wird die Stabilitit und Universalitat
mehr schadigen als férdern. Deshalb muB es—im Sinne des Geistes
der Praambel—Aufgabe und Pflicht der ICZN sein, die reale Gefahr
eines Schisma in der Nomenklatur unbedingt abzuwenden. Selbst
Anhinger des derzeitigen Artikel 23b miissen einsehen, daB die IRZN
kein Gesetz darstellen, daB sich in Zweifelsfallen auch durchsetzen,
erzwingen J4Bt. Es handelt sich vielmehr um eine internationale
Konvention, die der Basis einer breiten Majoritat bedarf. Es steht fiir
mich auBer Zweifel, daB der gegenwartige Zustand geeignet ist, das
Ansehen des Code mehr und mehr zu beeintrachtigen.

Diese grundsatzlichen Gesichtspunkte wiegen wesentlich schwerer
als der Artikel selbst. Es spricht fiir das hohe Verantwortungs-
bewuBtsein des Prasidenten, wenn er—durch V.P.(O.M.)(66)1—in
diesem Sinne endlich tatig geworden ist.

2. Ganz zu Unrecht hat die Diskussion um Artikel 23b inzwischen bei
weiten Kreisen zu dem Eindruck gefiihrt, es handele sich um die
grundsatzliche Entscheidung, ob leidige Namensinderungen in
Zukunft unterbunden werden sollen oder nicht. Tatsachlich handelt
es sich aber nur um die Beurteilung eines einzelnen unter zahlreichen
Faktoren. Es wire sicher interessant, einmal im Sinne einer ‘ Unfall-
Statistik’ zu untersuchen, in welchem Umfange die Nomenklatur
uberhaupt heute noch durch ‘ ausgegrabene’ Namen beeintrachtigt
wird.

“ Lassen Sie mich in englischer Sprache zusammenfassen:

(1) A careful study of the legal basis of V.P.(O.M.)(66)1 proves that it is not
invalid and void as suggested in your letter.

(2) The whole practical situation of Article 23b is in conflict with the Pre-
amble of the Code. We are confronted with the danger of a schism in
Nomenclature which would be a tragedy. An appropriate action by
the Commission is more than urgent.

(3) The bringing to an end of the present intolerable situation is much more
important than all further actions concerning the ‘ Statute of Limita-
tion ’ (Article 23b).”

12. Several Commissioners expressed fear that the suspension of Article 23b
was illegal and consequently the Acting President instructed the Secretariat to
obtain legal advice on the problem. It was submitted, through the courtesy of
the Managing Director of the International Trust, to Mr. Richard H. Buller, a

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

specialist in such matters. Mr. Buller submitted his report in October 1966 as
follows: ;

** As requested, I have considered the question whether it is in order by the
proposed Declaration, to suspend Article 23b of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature. In this connection I have considered the Code, the
Constitution and By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and the Memorandum and Articles of the Association of the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. I have also had before me
the draft of the proposed Declaration.

‘“‘In my view it is not in order to suspend Article 23b of the Code in the
manner proposed. My reasons for this view are as follows:

1. Article 79 of the Code empowers the Commission to suspend the applica-
tion of any provisions of the Code, subject to an exception, which does
not affect the present question, if such application to a particular case
would in its judgment disturb stability or universality or cause con-
fusion. I consider that the power of suspension may be used only in a
particular case and that there cannot be a general suspension for all
purposes of any provision of the Code.

2. If there had been power under Article 79 to suspend Article 23b, this
would constitute an exercise of plenary powers. Article 12b of the
Constitution of the International Commission prescribed that in cases
involving the use of the plenary powers an affirmative decision shall be
deemed to have been taken only when two-thirds of the votes validly
cast are in favour of the proposal. I understand that in this case two-
thirds of the votes were not cast in favour of the proposal. Moreover,
it is necessary that not less than six months’ notice of the impending
vote be given in at least three zoological serials, including one published
in Europe and one in America, and I understand that in this case the
members of the Commission were invited to vote under the one month
rule.

“* To summarize, I feel that Article 79 does not confer the necessary power

and, even if it had, I do not think the correct procedure was followed.”

Upon further being asked whether he would give an opinion on whether the
proposed suspension was covered by Article 78a of the Code, as a provisional
amendment to the Code, Mr. Buller wrote:

** As I have said, I did consider Article 78 of the Code. Provisional amend-
ments to the Code are also mentioned in Article 77(3).

‘“‘In my view Article 78a would not apply to a suspension of any provision
of the Code because the question of suspension is covered by Article 79. More-
over the power to issue ‘a Declaration (a provisional amendment to the Code)’
arises ‘ if a case before the Commission involves a situation that is not properly
or completely covered by the Code’. As I understand the position, no such
case has arisen. This seems a case of difficulty in, or dispute as to, interpreta-
tion of an Article.”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269

OPINION 795

ASTHRAEUS LAPORTE & GORY, 1837 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA):
VALIDATION OF EMENDATION TO ASTRAEUS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the emendation to Astraeus of the
generic name Asthraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837, is hereby validated.

(2) The generic name Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837 (gender: masculine),
type-species, by monotypy, Asthraeus (sic) flavopictus Laporte & Gory, 1837,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 1742.

(3) The specific name flavopictus Laporte & Gory, 1837, as published in
the binomen Asthraeus (sic) flavopictus (type-species of Astraeus Laporte &
Gory, 1837) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 2177.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1628)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. S.
Barker in January 1964. Dr. Barker’s application was sent to the printer on
8 May 1964 and was published on 16 October 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 .: 306-307. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other
prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl.
21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. The proposals were supported
by Dr. L. E. Koch and Dr. F. H. Uther Baker.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 16 June 1966 the Members of the Commission were requested to vote
under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)31 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 307. At the close of the required
voting period on 16 September 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Holthuis, Brinck, Boschma, Vokes, Jaczewski, Sabrosky, Obruchey,
Binder, Uchida, Tortonese, Kraus, Mayr, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Evans.

Negative votes—one (1): do Amaral.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe.

Commissioners Ride, Stoll and Bonnet returned late affirmative votes.
Commissioner Simpson returned a late negative vote with the following com-
ment: “ It is silly to waste time on so trivial a matter with no possible confusion
at issue. It will be endless if we start emending original spellings because we
think the author had a different letter in mind or transliterated wrongly.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:

Bull. zool. Nomencl.. Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837, Mon. Bupr. 1: 1, pl. 1, fig. 1
flavopictus, Astraeus, Laporte & Gory, 1837, Mon. Bupr. 1: 1, pl. 1, fig. 1

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)31 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 795.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

23 September 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271

OPINION 796

AMBALODUS BRANSON & MEHL, 1933 (CONODONTS): ADDED TO
THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES

RULING.—(1) The generic name Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 (gender:
masculine), type-species, by original designation, Ambalodus triangularis
Branson & Mehl, 1933, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology with the Name Number 1743.

(2) The specific name triangularis Branson & Mehl, 1933, as published in
the binomen Ambalodus triangularis (type-species of Ambalodus Branson &
Mehl, 1933) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 2178.

(3) The generic name Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934? (an injustified
emendation of Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933) is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 1894.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1633)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
Michael C. Mound and Dr. Raymond L. Ethington in January 1964. The
application was sent to the printer on 28 February 1964 and was published on
16 October 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 310-314. Public Notice of the
possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same
part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Con-
stitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological
serials. The proposals were supported by Professor C. G. Winder.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 16 June 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)33 either for or against the
proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 313-314. At the close of the
prescribed voting period on 16 September 1966 the state of the voting was as
follows:

Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Holthuis, Brinck, Boschma, Vokes, Sabrosky, Obruchev, Binder,
do Amaral, Uchida, Tortonese, Kraus, Mayr, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado,
Jaczewski, Evans.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe.

Commissioners Ride, Stoll, Simpson and Bonnet returned late affirmative
votes. A number of Commissioners, in returning their votes, expressed the
view that the use of the plenary powers was unnecessary in the present case.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official
Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933, University Missouri Studies 8 (2) : 127

Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934?, University Missouri Studies 8 (4) : errata

triangularis, Ambalodus, Branson & Mehl, 1933, University Missouri Studies
8(2) : 128, pl. 10, figs. 35-37

CERTIFICATE
We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)33 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 796.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

23 September 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273

OPINION 797

CHONETES MESOLOBUS NORWOOD & PRATTEN, 1854
(BRACHIOPODA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST

RULING.—(1) The generic name Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932 (gender:
masculine), type-species, by original designation, Chonetes mesolobus Norwood
& Pratten, 1854, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 1744.

_ (2) The specific name mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854, as published in
the binomen Chonetes mesolobus, as interpreted by the neotype designated by
R. D. Hoare, 1964 (type-species of Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2179.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1635)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Prof.
Richard D. Hoare in January 1964. Prof. Hoare’s application was sent to
the printer on 8 May 1964 and was published on 16 October 1964 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 315-317. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 16 June 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)34 either for or against the proposal
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 316. At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 16 September 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Holthuis, Brinck, Boschma, Vokes, Sabrosky, Obruchev, do Amaral,
Uchida, Tortonese, Kraus, Mayr, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Evans.

Negative votes—one (1): Binder.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe.

Commissioners Ride, Stoll, Simpson and Bonnet returned late affirmative
votes.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932, Nebraska geol. Surv. Bull. (2) 5 : 159-168,
pl. 20, figs. 1-17, 23-32
mesolobus, Chonetes, Norwood & Pratten, 1854, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad.
3 : 27, pl. 2, figs. 7a—c
The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a
species concerned in the present Ruling:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol, 23, Part 6. December 1966.

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

For Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854: R. D. Hoare, 1964, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 316, pl. 2, figs. 1-3

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)34 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 797.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

27 September 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275

OPINION 798

LYGAEUS QUADRATUS FABRICIUS, 1798 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA):
DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the type specimen of Lygaeus
quadratus Fabricius, 1798, at present labelled as such in the Paris Museum, is
hereby set aside, and the specimen described by Scudder & Wagner, 1964, is
hereby designated as neotype of that species.

(2) The specific name quadratus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen
Lygaeus quadratus, as interpreted, under the plenary powers, by the neotype
designated by Scudder & Wagner, 1964, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2180.

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1560)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr.
G. G. E. Scudder and Dr. E. Wagner in May 1964. The application was sent
to the printer on 13 July 1964 and was published on 26 November 1964 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 357-359. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to
the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was
received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 16 June 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)36 either for or against the proposals
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 359. At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 16 September 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—seventeen (17), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Brinck, Boschma, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Binder, do Amaral,
Uchida, Tortonese, Kraus, Mayr, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado, Evans.

Negative votes—two (2): Holthuis, Sabrosky.

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe.

Commissioners Ride, Stoll, Simpson and Bonnet returned late affirmative
votes.

The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their
votes:

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (24.vi.66): Either the specimen in the Kiel collection,
which may be one of the syntypes of the species should be selected lectotype or
neotype; or a specimen from as near as possible to the type locality (Paris), and
not one from Germany, should be made the neotype.

Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (22.vii.66): I do not object to the aim of the proposal,
but a neotype from ‘‘ Northern Germany” is scarcely appropriate, under
Article 75(5), for a species collected from “‘ near Paris”.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ORIGINAL REFERENCE

The following is the original reference for a name placed on the Official List
by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
quadratus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 232.
The following is the original reference for the description of a neotype for the
species concerned in the present Ruling:
For Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798 : Scudder & Wagner, 1964, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 21 : 359.

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)36 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted
under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of
the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 798.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

6 October 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277

OPINION 799

SARDINA PILCHARDUS (WALBAUM, 1792) (PISCES): ADDED TO THE
OFFICIAL LIST AS THE NAME OF THE EUROPEAN SARDINE

RULING.—(1) The generic name Arengus Cornide, 1788 (published in a
work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number
1895.

(2) The specific name minor Cornide, 1788, as published in the combination
Arengus minor (published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 878.

(3) The generic name Sardina Antipa, 1904 (gender : feminine), type-species,
by monotypy, Sardina dobrogica Antipa, 1904, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1745.

(4) The specific name pilchardus Walbaum, 1792, as published in the
binomen Clupea pilchardus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2181.

(5) The following work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 73:

Cornide (J.), 1788, Ensayo de una historia de los Peces y otras producciones

marinas de la Costa de Galicia, arreglado al sistema del caballero Carlos
Linneo. [Corunna.] (a work in which the author did not consistently
apply the principles of binominal nomenclature).

HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1614)

The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr.
Alwyne Wheeler in August 1964. Mr. Wheeler’s application was sent to the
printer on 2 September 1964 and was published on 26 November 1964 in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 21 : 360-362. The proposals were supported by Dr. C. E.
Lucas, Dr. G. Krefft, Prof. E. Tortonese, and the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 133-134).

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 16 June 1966 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under
the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (66)37 either for or against the proposal
set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 362. At the close of the prescribed voting
period on 16 September 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative votes—nineteen (19), received in the following order: China,
Lemche, Holthuis, Boschma, Brinck, Vokes, Jaczewski, Sabrosky, Obruchev,
Binder,do Amaral, Uchida, Tortonese, Kraus, Mayr, Mertens, Forest, Alvarado,
Evans.

Negative votes—none (0).

Voting Papers not returned—two (2): Hubbs, Munroe.

Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966,

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Commissioners Ride, Simpson, Stoll and Bonnet returned late affirmative
votes, although Commissioner Simpson voted against para. (5) of the proposals,
making the following comment: “It is clearly desirable to preserve Sardina
pilchardus. To do this, it is not necessary to reject Cornide, 1788, in toto, and
we are not well informed as to nomenclatural results of such action.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on the Official
Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion:
Arengus Cornide, 1788, Hist. Peces Galicia : 91
minor, Arengus, Cornide, 1788, Hist. Peces Galicia : 91
pilchardus, Clupea, Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Ichthyologia 3 : 38
Sardina Antipa, 1904, Anz. Akad. Wiss. Wien 41 : 302

CERTIFICATE

We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (66)37 were cast as set out
above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted,
and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 799.

G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA
Secretary Assistant Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

11 October 1966

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279

KERR, 1792, THE ANIMAL KINGDOM (MAMMALIA): PROPOSAL
TO PLACE THIS WORK ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF WORKS
APPROVED AS AVAILABLE FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Z.N.(S.) 1769

By Hans-Jiirg Kuhn (Dr. Senckenbergische Anatomie der Universitat
Frankfurt a.M., Germany)

The full title of the work in question is:

Kerr, Robert, 1792. The Animal Kingdom or Zoological System of the
celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus ;—Class 1 Mammalia: containing a complete
Systematic Description, Arrangement, and Nomenclature, of all the known
Species and Varieties of the Mammalia, or Animals which give suck to their
young; being a translation of that part of the Systema Naturae, as lately
published, with great improvements, by Professor Gmelin of Goettingen.—
Together with numerous additions from more recent zoological writers, and
illustrated with copperplates. London: Printed for J. Murray, Nr. 32, Fleet
Street; and R. Faulder, Nr. 42, New Bond Street, 4to, pp. I-XII, 11.14,
pp. 1-400, p11. I-VII.

2. The attention of zoologists was drawn to this work by J. A. Allen, 1895,
Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 7 : 179-192, who accepted it as available. Allen
was followed by C. D. Sherborn in 1902 in his Index Animalium, and its
availability was indirectly accepted by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in 1957 in Opinion 452 when placing one of Kerr’s
names (Canis vulpes australis) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
As pointed out by Allen, Volume 1 Part 2, on the Birds, is incomplete and
ends suddenly in the middle of the genus Corvus and perhaps should be
proposed separately, by an ornithologist, for insertion in the Official List of
Available Works.

Recently Buettner-Janusch, 1966, has rejected one of Kerr’s names (Simia
(Cecopithecus) hamadryus var. ursinus Kerr) on the grounds that it is not
available under Article 1 1c as it is not binominal. If this were so then all Kerr’s
names would have to be rejected and his work be considered unavailable.

3. I will attempt to demonstrate, below, that rejection of Kerr’s 1792 work
would result in terrible confusion in mammalogy, and that Kerr’s “ Animal
Kingdom ” actually meets the requirements of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature, and finally that it would be in the interest of stability
of zoological nomenclature if Kerr (1792) were to be placed on the Official
List of Available Works.

Although often ignored prior to Allen, (1895) who dealt with the names
of mammals given by Kerr, these names have been firmly established since.
Two generic names that are generally used today, Lynx and Myocastor, date
from Kerr, (1792). If Kerr’s work is rejected then Lynx could date from
Rafinesque, (1817) without change in spelling, but Myocastor would have to
be replaced by Myopotamus Geoffroy, 1815. Myocastor Kerr, 1792, has been

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

used in hundreds of publications during the last decades, while Myopotamus
seems never to have been used in recent times.

4. The following, probably incomplete, list of species-group names dating
from Kerr, (1792) which are firmly established today has been compiled to
show how many changes a rejection of Kerr’s Animal Kingdom would cause.
It should be noted how frequently Kerr’s names are those of the nominal
subspecies of polytypic species according to the present arrangement. This
would make a rejection of Kerr even more disturbing. I am unable to state
exactly what consequences it would have if Kerr were to be rejected, in each
of the cases. However, in each case I have given a reference to a widely
distributed recent check-list or revision of a group of mammals. The numbers
on the left are those of Kerr in his Animal Kingdom.

No. 25 Simia (Cercopithecus) hamadryas ursinus = Papio ursinus ursinus
(Kerr, 1792) (see Ellerman et alia, 1953 : 102)

No. 39 Simia (Cercopithecus) aethiops torquatus = Cercocebus torquatus
torquatus (Kerr, 1792) (see Allen, 1939 : 137)

No. 62 Simia (Cercopithecus) badius = Procolobus badius badius (Kerr, 1792)
(see Kuhn 1965 : 329)

No. 108 Vespertilio vampyrus helvus = Eidolon helvum helvum (Kerr, 1792)
(see Allen, 1939 : 54)

No. 115 Vespertilio labialis = Noctilio labialis labialis (Kerr, 1792) (see
Cabrera, 1957 : 56)

No. 165 Elephas americanus = Mastodon americanus (Kerr, 1792)

No. 275 Felis bengalensis = Felis bengalensis bengalensis Kerr, 1792 (see
Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951 : 312)

No. 298 Felis (Lynx) canadensis = Lynx canadensis canadensis (Kerr, 1792)
(see Hall & Kelson, 1959 : 967)

No. 331 Viverra maculata = Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Kerr, 1792)
(see Haltenorth, 1958 : 20)

No. 376 Ursus indicus = Mellivora capensis indica (Kerr, 1792) (see Ellerman
& Morrison-Scott, 1951 : 268)

No. 386 Didelphis virginiana = Didelphis marsupialis virginiana Kerr, 1792
(see Hall & Kelson, 1959 : 8)

No. 397 Didelphis tridactyla = Potorous tridactylus tridactylus (Kerr, 1792)
(see Haltenorth, 1958 : 35)

No. 398 Didelphis vulpecula = Trichosurus vulpecula vulpecula (Kerr, 1792)
(see Haltenorth, 1958 : 27)

No. 400 Didelphis volans = Schoinobates volans volans (Kerr, 1792) (see
Haltenorth, 1958 : 31)

No. 416 Sorex arcticus = Sorex arcticus arcticus Kerr, 1792 (see Hall &
Kelson, 1959 : 43)

No. 417 Sorex arcticus cinereus = Sorex cinereus cinereus Kerr, 1792 (see
Hall & Kelson, 1959 : 26)

No. 438 Hystrix mexicana = Coendou mexicanus mexicanus (Kerr, 1792) (see
Hall & Kelson, 1959 : 783)

No. 505 Mus lemmus sibiricus = Lemmus sibiricus sibiricus (Kerr, 1792) (see
Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951 : 655)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281

No. 507. Mus lenae = Dicrostonyx torquatus lenae (Kerr, 1792) (see Ellerman
& Morrison-Scott 1951 : 653).

No. 582 Sciurus (Petaurus) norfolcensis = Petaurus norfolcensis norfolcensis
(Kerr, 1792) (see Haltenorth, 1958 : 29)

No. 589 Dipus sibericus major = Allactaga major major (Kerr, 1792) (see
Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951 : 532)

No. 662 Cervus temama = Mazama americana temama (Kerr, 1792) (see Hall
& Kelson, 1959 : 1013).

Some names of Kerr are senior homonyms of names of later authors. In
the following two cases a junior homonym has been replaced by a new name
that is generally accepted today.

No. 297 Felis (Lynx) vulgaris maculatus; junior homonym is Felis maculata
Horsfield & Vigors, 1829. For the latter Lynx texensis is used today
(see Hall & Kelson, 1959 : 971)

No. 539 Sciurus albipes; of this Sciurus albipes Wagner, 1837 is a junior
homonym. For the latter Sciurus poliopus Fitzinger, 1867, is used
today (see Hall & Kelson, 1959 : 375).

If Kerr’s Animal Kingdom were to be rejected, Felis maculata Horsfield
& Vigors, 1829 and Sciurus albipes Wagner, 1837 would have to be used again.

Against all these motives for retaining Kerr (1792) I can find only a very
few examples where the rejection of Kerr would make the current nomenclature
more stable. According to Allen (1895 : 187) and Hershkovitz (1959 : 350)
Dasypus giganteus Geoffroy, 1803, which is widely used today is a subjective
synonym of Dasypus maximus Kerr, 1792 (No. 158). Probably Martes
americana, the North American Marten, should be credited to Kerr (No. 352,
Mustela zibellina americana) and not to Turton (1806), and the presently used
Felis caracal nubicus Fischer, 1829, may be a synonym of Felis (Lynx) nubiensis
Kerr, 1792 (No. 292), (See Allen, 1939 : 235; Setzer, 1956 : 560). The widely
used name Viverra maculata Gray, 1830, for a West African genet (see Allen,
1939 : 201; Rosevear, 1953 : 113; Kuhn, 1965 : 332) is a junior homonym of
Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (No. 331), but even if Kerr’s work were to be
rejected, itwould still become a junior homonym of Viverra maculata Shaw, 1800.

5. If Kerr’s work is officially made available by the Commission there is
some danger that an individual author might use one or other of the many
names that are considered, at present, unidentifiable. However, Article 23b
would require, in each of these cases, that the author ask the Commission to
place the name either on the Official List or the Official Index.

6. Buettner-Janusch (1966) rejected Kerr because he thought that Kerr
did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. However,
where Kerr used more than one generic name the first was the Linnaean name,
indicated by its initial letter, and the second was the subgeneric name. Where
he used more than one specific name, the first is the specific name proper and the
second the varietal name always indicated by a letter of the greek alphabet.

7. To avoid the instability in nomenclature resulting from the differences
in opinion as to the availability of Kerr’s ‘‘ Animal Kingdom ”, the International
Commission is requested to place this work on the Official List of Works
Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature.

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REFERENCES

ALLEN, G.M. 1939. A checklist of African Mammals. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.,
Harvard 83 : 1-763

ALLEN, J. A. 1895. On the names of mammals given by Kerr in his “ Animal
Kingdom ” published in 1792. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 7 : 179-192.

BUETTNER-JANUSCH, J. 1966. A problem in evolutionary systematics: Nomenclature
and classification of baboons, genus Papio. Folia primatologica 4 : 288-308.

CABRERA, A. 1958, 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. pp. XXII,
1-732, Buenos Aires.

ELLERMAN, J. R., and Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of palaearctic
and Indian Mammals. 1-810, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) London.

ELLERMAN, J. R., MorRISON-ScotTT, T. C. S., and HAYMAN, R. W. 1953. Southern
African Mammals. 1-363, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) London.

HALL, E. R., and KeLson, K. R. 1959. The Mammals of North America. 2 vols.,
Ronald Press, New York.

HALTENORTH, T. 1958. Klassifikation der Saéugetiere. Handb. Zool., 8(16) : 1-40.

HersHKovitz, P. 1959. Nomenclature and taxonomy of the neotropical mammals
described by Olfers, 1818, J. Mamm., 40 : 337-353.

Kuun, H.-J. 1965. A provisional checklist of the mammals of Liberia. Senck.
biol., 46 : 321-340.

RoseEVEAR, D. R. 1953. Checklist and atlas of Nigerian mammals. Lagos.

Setzer, H. W. 1956. Mammals of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Proc. U.S. Nat.
Mus. 106 : 447-587.

COMMENT ON THE BIRD NAMES IN KERR’S “ ANIMAL KINGDOM ”
By E. Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.)

I have examined this work and also read J. A. Allen’s article on the subject as it
relates to mammals. I do not see how it can be doubted that (in the absence of
exercise of the plenary powers to suppress) Kerr’s book is an available and binominal
work under the Code. In fact it purports to be merely a translation of Gmelin’s
edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus, with some modification and additions.
So far as concerns the incomplete part dealing with birds, Kerr states in his intro-
duction to that part that he has added genera (and doubtless species) from Latham’s
Index. As both Gmelin’s Systema and Latham’s Index are among the best known
early binominal works relating to birds after Linnaeus, Kerr’s work is hard to question.

Let me say, however, that I do not know any bird name credited to Kerr in the
American avifauna, and Dr. Charles Vaurie, an expert on Palaearctic birds, tells me
that he knows no palaearctic generic or specific name credited to him. This, I suspect,
is because all his bird names are taken from earlier binominal authors, Linnaeus,
Gmelin, or Latham, particularly. While I have glanced through the book, let me
make it clear that I have not attempted to compare every name used for a bird with
the current names, to determine whether some of his names might not perhaps have
priority. One reason I think this is unnecessary, is that the fifty year statute of
limitations (Art. 23b) would invalidate such names that have never been used for over
170 years, at least if a junior synonym was in current use. Moreover, according to
his introduction, Kerr claimed no originality regarding his bird part, but stated that
he had merely split some of the Linnaean orders, as others had done, and shifted a
few genera. So I think it unlikely that Kerr’s bird part will prove bothersome. If
some individual case should arise not covered by Art. 23b which interferes with
stability, that may be dealt with individually. If there were no 23b Vaurie and I
might be in favour of suppressing the work, but we feel that under the circumstances
recognizing its availability under the Code will do no harm, and avoids the need of
exercising the plenary powers.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283

OPOPSITTA MARSHALLI IREDALE, 1946 (AVES): PROPOSED SETTING
ASIDE OF HOLOTYPE AND DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPE.
Z.N.(S.) 1773

By Joseph M. Forshaw (Division of Wildlife Research, C.SI.R.O.,
Canberra, A.C.T., Australia)

1. In my revisionary studies in the genus Opopsitta | have concluded that
Opopsitta marshalli is a recognizable subspecies of O. diophthalma (Psittacula
diophthalma Hombron and Jacquinot, 1841). However, owing to great
deterioration of the holotype, this is no longer apparent from an examination
of that specimen. For reasons discussed below, I therefore request the
Commission to set aside the holotype and recognize a neotype of O. marshalli.
The facts are as follows:

2. In 1946 Iredale (Emu 46 : 1) described a new fig parrot as Opopsitta
marshalli, with type locality “‘ the Great Dividing Range behind Lockhart
River, Cape York Peninsula, North Queensland ”’. Iredale had three specimens,
an adult male (designated as holotype), an adult female, and an immature male.
All three specimens are illustrated in a coloured drawing accompanying the
description.

3. Mayr, 1947 (Emu 47 : 54), compared Iredale’s description and drawing
of marshalli with a series of O. d. aruensis Schlegel, 1874, and stated that his
comparison “fails to reveal a single difference’. He stated however that
absolute identity could not be established until the Cape York specimens were
compared directly with specimens of O. d. aruensis, and, until a valid distinction
was pointed out, O. marshalli should be considered a synonym of O. d. aruensis.
Subsequent authors have followed Mayr’s recommendation.

4. For my own studies I examined the holotype (Australian Museum no.
037600) and the other two original specimens (Aust. Mus. nos. 037598 9,
037599 imm. 3) and found that all three had deteriorated greatly and showed
much evidence of damage by pests. The frontal and crown feathers, all of the
feathers above and around the eyes, the tail feathers and many of the wing
feathers have disappeared from the holotype. The adult female is in a similar
condition and the immature male is in even worse condition. The holotype
is not labelled as such and neither of the other two specimens bear any special
designation such as paratype; they have been identified by the collector’s label
carrying his name and the place and date of collection.

5. As a result of the great damage to the holotype and the original
specimens, it became necessary to collect fresh material before the taxonomic
status of O. marshalli could be determined. In January, 1966 ten specimens
were collected.

6. Comparison of this new material with two males (American Museum
of Natural History no. 618951, Aust. Mus. no. 030596) and two females
(A.M.N.H. no. 618954, Aust. Mus. no. 0920) of O. d. aruensis, all from the
Aru Islands, the type locality, shows that in my opinion O. marshalli is a
recognizable subspecies of O. diophthalma. The following characters distin-

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

guish marshalli from aruensis. In the male, marshalli has a small patch of
bright blue feathers above and behind the eye, while in aruensis these feathers
are pale greenish blue. In the female of marshalli the feathers on the forepart
of the crown are bright violet blue, while in aruensis the same feathers are pale
sky blue. There appears to be no difference in size between the two races.
The colours of the heads in Iredale’s drawing are not a true representation of
the colours of O. marshalli, and indeed the blue on the crown of the female
appears to be closer to female specimens of arvensis.
7. As far as can be ascertained the series of new specimens, including the
neotype proposed below, are consistent with Iredale’s description. The place
of collection of the proposed neotype is within 20 miles of the type locality
and was the nearest accessible place to the type locality where the birds were
found. Although the holotype is a male, the best diagnostic character is found
on the female and for that reason a female would serve best as a neotype.
8. As the holotype of marshalli and the two other original specimens are
no longer of any use in differentiating marshalli from related taxa, I therefore
ask the Commission:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the holotype of Opopsitta marshalli
Iredale, 1946, and to recognize as neotype of Opopsitta marshalli
Iredale, 1946, an adult female specimen, no. 0.10691 in the collections
of the Queensland Museum, Brisbane, collected at Iron Range, Cape
York Peninsula, Queensland, by J. M. Forshaw, on 22nd January,
1966:

(2) to place the specific name marshalli Iredale, 1946, as published in the
binomen Opopsitta marshalli, on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285

APPLICATION TO PLACE ON THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL LIST
THE NAMES GIVEN BY G. FISCHER 1814 TO THE CRICETID
RODENTS DESCRIBED BY FELIX DE AZARA IN THE FRENCH
TRANSLATION OF “ESSAIS SUR L’HISTOIRE NATURELLE DES
QUADRUPEDES DU PARAGUAY,” 1801. Z.N.(S.) 1774

By Alfredo Langguth (Dr. Senckenbergische Anatomie der Universitat,
Frankfurt a.M., Germany)

In the year 1801 Felix de Azara described in the “ Essais op. Gymice
belonging to the Cricetidae. His descriptions are very accurate and quite
outstanding for the epoch. It is regrettable that Azara did not use linnean
nomenclature but applied vernacular names to the mice he described.

2. The first person to give linnean names to Azara’s cricetids was Gotthelf
Fischer (1814). In his ‘‘ Zoognosia. . .”” G. Fischer used the following names
accompanied by a clear reference to Azara’s descriptions: page 71

M[us] rufus Rat Roux of Azara genus Oxymycterus
Mus tarso nigro Rat a Tarse Noir » Oryzomys
Mus laucha et lauchita Laucha et Lauchita » Calomys

M [us] auritus Rat Oreillard »» Reithrodon
M{[us] angouya Rat Angouya » Oryzomys
M{us] megacephalus Rat a Grosse Téte »» Oryzomys

3. The second naturalist who named Azara’s cricetids was Karl Illiger
(1815). There is little doubt that Illiger’s names referred to Azara’s descriptions
but the author did not make a clear statement thereon and his names must be
considered “‘nomina nuda”. The following are the names given by Illiger:
page 108

Mus capito

Mus buccinatus

Mus physodes

Mus rutilans

Mus nigripes

Mus laucha

4. In 1818 Olfers, reviewing the work of Illiger above mentioned, listed
the names proposed by the last author and accompanied them by a clear
reference to Azara’s descriptions. In this way the names became available.
The following are Olfers names:

M[us] capito Rat a Grosse Téte
M{[us] buccinatus Rat Angouya
M{us] physodes Rat Oreillard
M[us] rutilans Rat Roux

M[us] nigripes Rat a Tarse Noir
M [us] laucha Laucha et Lauchita

5. The third naturalist who named Azara’s cricetids was Desmarest
(1819). He accompanied the new names with a description transcribed from

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 6. December 1966.

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Azara and a clear reference to Azara’s work. The following are Desmarest’s
names: pages 62-65

Mus rufus Rat Roux

Mus nigripes Rat a Tarse Noir

Mus laucha Rat Laucha et Lauchita
Mus auritus Rat Oreillard

Mus angouya Rat Angouya

Mus cephalotes Rat a Grosse Téte

No other new names seem to have been applied to the mice concerned.

6. The names given to Azara’s mice are of a great importance since they
are the oldest available for a neotropical Cricetidae and in most of the cases
are applied to species with a considerable number of subspecies. In the last
few years a tendency may be observed to synonymize Azara’s mice with younger
but far better described nominal species for which types are available. In
some cases this merits reserve but in others seems to be correct.

7. Desmarest’s names have been accorded the widest recognition. They
have been used by every mammalogist and reviser for about 140 years. They
are used in classical works like the ‘‘ Catalogus Mammalium ”’ of Trouessart,
have been used in a revision of the taxonomy of Azara’s mice by Tate (1932)
and they are the names for Azara’s Cricetidae mentioned by Sherborn in the
*“ Index Animalium’”’.* Olfers and Fischer’s names, on the other hand, have
been generally ignored by subsequent authors, probably in the case of G.
Fischer because they are not accompanied by a description and because of the
rarity of the work in the case of Olfers. For nomenclatorial purposes however
both sets of names are available.

8. Hershkovitz (1955) for the first time called attention to the paper by
Olfers (1818) and published a full account of these names in 1959. Thus
began a long and difficult process of name changing which is still not totally
accomplished. For instance in the Checklist of Cabrera (1961), the most
important work on South American mammals ever published, three names of
Desmarest are still used as well as three names of Olfers.

9. The names dating from G. Fischer 1814 should be used for Azara’s
cricetids, according to the law of priority, as the oldest synonyms. According
to article 23(b) however, Fischer’s names for Azara’s cricetidae must be con-
sidered forgotten names since they have not been used as senior synonyms in the
last 50 years. It is interesting to note that many names given by G. Fischer
(1814) to other mammals described by Felix de Azara are long since in general
use as senior synonyms. Some of them are:

Euryzygomatomys spinosus Rat Epineux
Dusicyon gymnocercus Agouarachay
Felis (Herpailurus) yagouaroundi eyra -Yagouaroundi
Mazama gouazoubira gouazoubira Gouazou-bira

* Sherborn gives without doubt preference to Desmarest’s names, he only mentions G.
Fischer’s names when they are not homonyms of Desmarest’s names. All Illiger’s names
are also mentioned, always remarking that they are nomina nuda. Olfers is ignored in the
work of Sherborn.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287

10. Since:

(a) The names published by Fischer (1814) in “ Zoognosia ”’ are the oldest
available names for the Cricetidae described in the French edition of
the work of Azara (1801);

(b) The names proposed by Olfers although appropriate according to the
Code are 11 years after his rediscovery still not in general use;

(d) Many names proposed by G. Fischer (1814) for mammals described by
Azara are long since in general use;

(e) Four of G. Fischer’s names are homonyms (and objective synonyms)
of Desmarest names, thus facilitating the changing from Desmarest’s
to Fischer’s names. Only two of Olfers’ names are homonyms of
Desmarest’s names;

(f) Mus physodes Brants (an Oryzomys) is a junior homonym of Mus
physodes Olfers (a Reithrodon). The name physodes has been always
employed for Brants’ nominal species, the type of which is preserved in
the Berlin Museum. For Mus physodes Olfers (Rat Oreillard) the
name auritus is in common use. Confusion between the two names
may be avoided by using the older name auritus Fischer instead of
physodes Olfers for the “‘ Rata conejo” of Argentina;

(g) In adopting G. Fischer names as the appropriate names for Azara’s
cricetids described in the French edition, I believe it will be possible
to remain true to the law of priority and at the same time to reach a
real stability in the nomenclature of these mice with the least possible
confusion :—

11. I propose that the International Commission place the following

names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) rufus Fischer, 1814, p. 71, as published in the binomen Mus rufus;

(b) tarsonigro Fischer, 1814, p.71,as published in the binomen Mus tarsonigro;

(d) auritus Fischer, 1814, p. 71, as published in the binomen Mus auritus;

(e) angouya Fischer, 1814, p. 71, as published in the binomen Mus angouya;

(f) megacephalus Fischer, 1814, p. 71, as published in the binomen Mus
megacephalus.

REFERENCES

AZARA, FELIX DE. 1801. Essais sur l’histoire naturelle des quadrupédes de la
province du Paraguay. Paris, 2 : 1-499.

CABRERA, ANGEL. 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Rey.
Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat., Bs. As. Zool. : 4(2) : 309-732.

DESMAREST, A G. 1819. Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle. 2nd ed.
29 : 62-65.

FISCHER, GOTTHELF. 1814. Zoognosia. Tabulis synopticis illustrata. Moscow,
3 : xxiv + 732 pp.

HERSHKOVITZ, PHILIP. 1955. South american marsh rats, genus Holochilus, with a
summary of sigmodont rodents. Fieldiana, Zool. 37 : 639-687.

— 1959. Nomenclature and taxonomy of the neotropical mammals described
by Olfers, 1818. J. Mammalogy 40(3) : 337-353.

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ILLIGER, Kart. 1815. Uberblick der Saéugthiere nach ihrer Vertheilung iiber die
Welttheile. Abh. K. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1804-1811 : 39-159.

OLFERS, IGNAZ VON. 1818. Bemerkungen zu Illiger’s Uberblick der Saugthiere nach
ihrer Vertheilung tiber die Welttheile, riicksichtlich der Siidamericanischen
Arten (Species). (Abhandlung X of Wilhelm Ludwig Eschwege’s Journal von
Brasilien..., vol. 15, Heft 2, pp. 192-237, of the ‘*‘ Neue Bibliothek des
wichtigsten Reisenbeschreibungen zur Erweiterung der Erd-und V6lkerkunde. ..”
edited by F. T. Bertuch, Weimar).

Tate, G.H.H. 1932. The south american Cricetidae described by Félix de Azara.
Amer. Mus. Novitates, No. 557 : 1-5.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289

INDEX TO AUTHORS

Page
Abbott, R. Tucker ... ... 80, 90

Applin, Esther R.... coq nt ee

Avila-Pires, Fernando Dias de 69

Besuchet, Claude _... Ae
Boeseman, M. Ss wt ital
Bohart, R. M. se re 48
Bonne-Wepster, J. ... sen 190
Bright, D. E. ... ms: aeteilte
Burks, B.D. .:. bes oe 11
Carpenter, F. M... .... See 38
Cate, Jean M. a ee H133
Cernohorsky, Walter O. _... 80
Chan We”... s Ese 146
Chillcott, J. G. ae rae 2A
Chima. W. E:... 2, 70, 164
Covciman,-LiE.. /s.: as 6
Cowan, C. F. 188, 253
Dick, Myvanwy M. ... Jo get AA
Dirsh, V. M. ... ci Late 2)
Dupuis, Claude sia £21 1434
Edwards, R. L. ui: P 76

Eisenmann, Eugene ... 75, 282

Forshaw, Joseph M. ee 20S

Page
Galiano, Maria Elena 255, 256
Gans, Carl ... Se moe LGD
Gunter, Gordon ons tas 76
Heppell, David ee — 81
Hershkovitz, Philip ... ... 67, 74
Herting, B.... =e Benes
Hodges, Ronald W. ... Sea? es
Hubbs, Carl L. es ey 2
Jaczewski, T. ... si Ze ES)
Jelinek, J. aes 3 = ott 239
Keen, Myra ... ... 146, 179, 181
Keys K. HH, i: fia ads 76
Kimmins, D. E. me. Aven BIS2
Klauber, Laurence M. Bp 73
Kraus, Otto ... ad a 82
Kuhn, Hans-Jirg ... ie Sel

Langguth, Alfredo 243, 285
Lansbury, I. ... as rete 3
Levi, Herbert W._..... =e 82
Long, Charles A... ole = ae
Lynch, John D. tt ves, ae
McLean, J. D., Jr. ... Me LSS
Matsumoto, T. ae is 57

290

Mattingly, P. F.
Mayr, Ernst ...
MeesiiGak= ..
Melville, R. V.

Menke, A. S....
Mertens, Robert
Mitchell, M. ...
Mound, L. A.

Pericart, J.
Perkins, J. F....
Phillips, Allan R.
Pont, A. C.

Reese, Robert W.

Rehder, Harald A.

Reichardt, Hans
Reid, J. A.

Riley; M.D. 3
Rossem, G. van
Rowe, F. W. E.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
132

65, 195

149

70, 194

: 43; UTA, 176
82

126

160, 241

169

133, 146
60

132, 190
165, 186
8

245

Page
Sabrosky, Curtis W. ... 9, 194

Smith, Hobart M. 72, 124, 145, 169

Stannard, Lewis J. ... ‘is eee
Steel, W. ©: :.. eS ee |
Svetovidov, A. N. noe oo
Thomson, Keith Stewart ... 117
Trewavas, Ethelwynn 4, 157, 158
Vecht, J. van der... ae 48
Veal, bs, +28 ahs a eee
Whitehead, P. J. P..... 62, 110
Wolk, Robert G. ... Ap US
Wood. Gate ce. Si “rd 70
Woodward, Fred R. _ a
Wright, C. W. sg ae 57
Zimmerman, Elwood C. ... 186
Zweifel, Richard G. ... re |:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291

LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME

Declaration Page
42 198
Opinion

761 (Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909) ... NS . * a if 13
762 (Seven Holothurioidea names) oH a ae: wee vk 15
763 (Stenorhynchus Lamark, 1818) ia : ies as 19
764 (Chaetoderma Lovén and Chaetodermis Swainson) rt gy 22
765 (Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931) se a sen _ oats 25
766 (Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1861) ae fe ar is 27
767 (Serpula Linnaeus, 1758)... ais wea ee 29
768 (Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861) . Bre at ae 31
769 (Yoldia Moller and Portlandia Morch) _... te e ae 33
770 (Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) cep oa an ie an 35
771 (Thamnophis sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758) A aa ix Sat 38
772 (Curimata Walbaum, 1792) sey re arty arts ms 4]
773 (Tergipes Cuvier, 1805) ae sat ws she Pe: ats 84
774 (Eubranchus Forbes, 1838) . ¥: 2a AS: aie ae. 87
775 (Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855)... vd th me = 91
776 (Cratena Bergh, 1864) LS oe in a 93
777 (Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’ Donoghue, 1923) iss ae ns 95
778 (Godiva Macnae, 1954) nt oe as =e 98
779 (Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797) a a, a Be ee otc VERO
780 (Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843) see ody ae ate rae
781 (Flabellina Voigt, 1834)... “a ie oe vod te Ge
782 (Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851) ae wt cee eG
783 (Four Nudibranch Gastropoda genera) ... re ¥: :. es
784 (Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838) oe : wei » <a a
785 (Pseudosquilla Dana and Gonodactylus Berthold) | a ee, eet
786 (Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923) st ie mee. fi
787 (Baetis [Leach] and Ephemera bioculata Linnaeus) =e sav een
788 (Megalopta Smith, 1853)... Ss en wai ss Sid AE
789 (Hiibner’s Erste Zutrdge, 1808) _... Se 3 rene!
790 (Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850]) = = |
791 (Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949)... me So bay age
792 (Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801) ... one a Bee sai. eS
793 (Nana Schumacher, 1817) ... so Pe Fe a ay
794 (Spalerosophis Jan, 1865)... aie “as ae ssn ae
795 (Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837) .. ee ate sie ti Oe
796 (Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933) , : ae ta eT
797 (Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854). : ie Pega oY 6
798 (Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798) Tee ae oe ae tee

799 (Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792)) _... sae oe: apne hd

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

INDEX TO KEY NAMES

Page

abyssicola, Cuthonella, Bergh, 1884 ine ake = A — ay LOS
compocoris Reuter, 1875... aes ee or is} sak ae Sic? ae
aculeata, Holothuria, Semper, 1868... ee on ay Pee he ee 16
acus, Sphyraena, Lacépéde, 1803... are = eo ee: a saat 150
Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797... ae - ae sis Wee bes: sit eee 0.)
Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 ee ide xa Be ae Ay ae 6 LOZ
AEOLIDIIDAE d’Orbigny, 1834 ant an ey Ae ae om , BOs 00
Aethalion Herrmannsen, 1846 ee sae a GA. asf sh am! 87
affinis, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 ... at ht ae a ny oe jee Os
africanus, Anopheles, Theobald, 1901 a Le cr om ney Hvhaeee 1S)
Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799 ... idl si vie ae ae eh ane 72
agreste, Ratton, Brants, 1827 des a2 ihe ae wen te Ppa 2's
alba, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844 pan ts uae bf He eee LOS
albifasciata, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833 ... aa at eae ae: 15
Alimerichthus Claus, 1871... a 28: on Soe aoe ie pee? | 5)
Amaurobius Koch, 1837 a ee = - i ase = “ 82
Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 . “Aa a¥, oe oh ree aod
Amblema Rafinesque, 1820 ... a ae ca “3 oe am “ 7
Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934? fa i ate Sx ee she 2a
americanus, Carabus, Linnaeus, 1758 ee be ee . a 12 61
Amplexizaphrentis Vaughan, 1906 ... nie rae ie er Al = 82
angouya, Mus, Fischer, 1814... ee st Ae =: ae bE “ar 285
apicalis, Pygophora, Schiner, 1868 ... oY ae Ie = at .. 160
Arcopagus Leach, 1817 A a2 nae ae ae a. us ERT tA
arctica, Nucula, Gray, 1824 ... ae “a nas Bak awe ME ap 33
Arengus Cornide, 1788 she ae eas As Be fe hy A he 7/7)
argalus, Belona, Lesueur, 1821 x ay Hs a ae an Ok LS
argenteus, Prochilodus, Agassiz, 1829 nee ; we ne ea ah 41
assectator, Acridium, Fischer von Waldheim, 1833. He 1g; Ne: ce 235
Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837... a Z¥: a8 rsh ee me 269
aurantia, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842... se iy a dsd e 95
aureus, Chromis, Steindachner, 1864 a: So is eat a Statens k=)7/
aureus, Otolithus, Richardson, 1846 be = ad Le Lig jee LOS
auriculata, Doris, Miller, 1776 = As _, +56 aie be st Pate 91
aurita, Sardinella, Valenciennes, 1847 ote — nk dos . ame 63
australis, Colochirus, Ludwig, 1875... ap a seit ve eS: Bs 16
auritus, Mus, Fischer, 1814 ... a a ste es ade ats it DS
Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, [1850] See 522 irs 3 Brite 7272)
AXOPORIDAE Boschma, 1951 ... bi a fer <i ae e apes 4|
Baetis [Leach, 1815] . e i es = ae mee See ALE:

beaumonti, Copiclla, Eliot, 1906 . a Be: sar os — eo LOS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293

Page
bioculata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1758 op 3% Pry a rn ‘tae OD
blancodebaxo, Ratton, Brants, 1827 Fe a ey re Ae jew 243
Bolbobythus Raffray, 1904... Ae aon a ae af a sore LTA:
borealis, Prionotropis, Warren, 1930... oe ae afi ae he ae oH
Brachypterolus Grouvelle, 1913 = ay a ae oor ae al ee
brachypterus, Dermestes, Fabricius, 1792 ... sae Pe ste a ee DAD
bradyi, Squilla, Milne Edwards, 1869 mae nat se = aaa s« » 204
branchialis, Doris, Rathke, 1806... at ie. i Sea Pr. 220, LOS
brochi, Tergipes, Risso, 1818... ee a ee a ie aes ae 84
Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794 are sai ee a Xi Tin ae oc. La
buccalis, Thyone, Stimpson, 1856... she a ee se Se ee 16
bulbifer, Pselaphus, Reichenbach, 1816... ae I con bps mes (i \'
bulbosa, Cyrene, Cambridge, 1901 ... oak Soe a at ye cau DOS
Bythinus Leach, 1817 as ay at we ia be - sn LG
Cacatua Vieillot, 1817 ay Red ap aan ae $8 = ae 6
caerulea, Doris, Montagu, 1804 _... sie at aa oe ses ite 95
caeruleovittata, Clupea, Richardson, 1846 ... Se. — A ise) 15055 147
Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 ae le ey, sue aa BAS oe ee
CALMIDAE Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923... ap eee ~ee 92 eo LOD
Camerophoria King, 1846... at spe Be ae Se — a 35
CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883... _ ea nt a re ms 35
canicularis, Musca, Linnaeus, 1761 ... oe cet 5 = = = er oa
Capys Hewitson, 1864 eo Fan re Hy: Pe ee a. 25° R06S
CARDINALINAE Sushkin, 1925 = whe ea Se xe aM avt*261
Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838; Jarocki, 1821 = see sor is van ZO
cardinalis, Loxia, Linnaeus, 1758... as a ae a a e201
caucasicus, Pomatoschistus, Berg, 1916 a Be fe iss an atk 55
ceratentoma, Eolidia, Otto, 1821... ox ae va ae jad se 87
Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844... se ad a P- =a A aa 22
CHAETODERMATIDAE von Jhering, 1876 = a ao nae ar mY 22
Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 - = ee a ee 2s ae 22
Chapmania Silvestri & Prever, 1904 a 7 +e Ape ane me 25
Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931 ... LZ het ed ee At = hee 25
Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843... Ps aa ae ade oes ip ‘a ee
chiragra, Squilla, Fabricius, 1781... a sae + aw xe 2 AZO4
CHRYSOPINAE Schneider, 1851 oa ae ae a Hs! oe 132, 194
chrysotis, Certhia, Latham, 1801... es eh 3 A. = er meas
ciliata, Notonecta, Fabricius, 1798 ... a “ts 1g =a eS) foe Sh
ciliata, Squilla, Fabricius, 1787 = = =: bse a ae 6 aeeh204

cinera, Stenopoda, Laporte, 1833... B- so sit 3s 08 wi 64

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

clathrata, Anguilla, Richardson, 1844
colibreve, Ratton, Brants, 1827
Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947
coluber, Holothuria, Semper, 1868 ...
Condylocardia Bernard, 1896

connae, Neolycaena, Evans, 1932
coriaceus, Phlaeothrips, Haliday, 1836
Cornide, 1788 work ...

Cornufer Tschudi, 1838

Coronida Brooks, 1886
Coroniderichthus Hansen, 1895
Coronis Desmarest, 1823

corticis, Trips, de Geer, 1773
Coryphella Gray, 1850
CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889..
COSMOPTERIGIDAE Heinemann & Wocke, 1876
Cosmopterix Hubner, 1825 ...
Cratena Bergh, 1864 ...
Crystallophrysson Graff, 1875
Cumanotus Odhner, 1907

Curimata Bosc, 1817 ...

curimata, Salmo, Walbaum, 1792
CURIMATINAE Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889
Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855
Cuthonella Bergh, 1884

CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934 ...
Cyclope Risso, 1826 ...

Cyclosalpa Blainville, 1827 ...

debilis, Leptopodia, Smith, 1871
democratica, Salpa, Forskal, 1775 ...
Diaphoreolis \redale & O’Donoghue, 1923
Diplocera Blanchard, 1848 ...

Diplosoma Macdonald, 1859

diquemari, Tergipes, Risso, 1818
dorsettensis, Cancer, Pennant, 1777...
Duhamel, 1769-1782 work ... ee
dumblei, Truncatulina, Applin, 1925

Page

...63, 147

243

97, 194

15
181
188
126
277
167
204
205
204
127
104
104
155
155

22
108

84
108

85
227
233

19
232
95
106
245
84
19
52
183

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295

Page
edentulus, Salmo, Bloch, 1794 Et ope fas it Je: nied ‘ak 41
elachistus, Paratylenchus, Steiner, 1949... tf ss ae 1 pth wns223
Elatophilus Reuter, 1884 _... cae ue ae a ie i ge 22
Eleutherodactylus Dumeéril & Bibron, 1841 7 at Re wef eh wl67
elongatus, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860... am nee oa aie wid Bae 27
Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 ae as eas nad me JeevrlO6
Enithares Spinola, 1837 ee. he ae ae # sts 23 i se A9
ensiger, Gonodactylus, Owen, 1832 ... “e sas a Ae ae seen. 204
Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843 ... ae =e a a ¥e ae si elO2
EOLIDININAE Pruvot-Fol, 1951 yA Ste ue ee ES Be bntabe lO?
episcopalis, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1758 ... b ent. o2 ie zal sist 80
erectus, Hippocampus, Perry, (1810) a 7% ae ‘a a" ee TB
errabunda, Cellia, Swellengrebel, 1925 Bo ss con oe. as es rele!)
espinoso, Ratton, Brants, 1827 ce Be as: ae a San eee. |s:
Ethalion Risso, 1826 ... ae ra bs a ee ae bis Ss 87
EUBRANCHIDAE Odhner, 1934 Be or ae a Pi. oe ee 88
Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 _... = ue 3 rie aa es BE 87
Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 ae ise on i ae is sae 13
exigua, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1848 oy Re xen ee inst nip 84
Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855... i A. ah SA iy 91
FACELININAE Bergh, 1889 _... re 32 we - afk es ae 91
fallax, Clupea, Lacépéde, 1803 se ts ee, MS Had Bh ay 52
farrani, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844 ___... S85 Es S33 be Us 87
fasciculata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 _... Ae, ae 5 ait ye BAY 85
FAVORININAE Bergh, 1889... ats noe a: wis om He OS
Favorinus Gray, 1850... Ase see xe Ay. ce po “he 2 AOS
ficta, Alosa, Duhamel, 1772 ... ae a A pn ie a ri 52
fimbriata, Spratella, Valenciennes, 1847... pie sae * a x. 62
Flabellina Voigt, 1834, et al... of — oe Be: aie sk on 104
FLABELLININAE Bergh, 1889 . e oe er ae a x LOA
flavopictus, Asthraeus, Fapotte & Gory, 1837 ser 2 a ne .. 269
flosmaris, Clupea, Richardson, 1846 ae se a bag Ss eee ||
formosa, Rhynchonella, Hall, 1857 ... ae sm ve oe Ge Pr 35
fusca, Fistularia, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833 ... ac sii y + 2 15
fuscata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1758 ... we s, ane 0 er FF <n, 209
Galerita Fabricius, 1801 ee ah iy aoe ate 4 a: sap 60
GALERITINI Lacordaire, 1854... a a Ses A ot ck a 60
GALERITININI Jeannel, 1949 ... aan + zie % ald 4a" vies 60

GALERITULINI Jedlicka, 1963... it Ae 3 ak a a ast 60

296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
gassinensis, Chapmania, Silvestri, 1905 Bed ne MS 2 a bss ee 25
glaucoides, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1854... 5H he ae oe vo 102
Godiva Macnae, 1954... ae ae aus ee ache Aa ae ate 98
Gonerichthus Brooks, 1886 ... ec ad a hae hs wee ceeel205
Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827... ii Says Se wal as scp sn 208
Gracilaria Haworth, 1828... a te He Bs A ade VSS
GRACILARIIDAE Stainton, 1854 mee See ae soe 2 fas .. 186
Gracillaria Haworth, 1828 ... ost ane te #. Be ae i. eli86
grandinatus, Trochus, Gmelin, 1791... se ae sd it se Fanta l8o0
Griselda Heinrich, 1923 af ; ve =) Ss ae 207
guamensis, Holothuria, Quoy & Gainaick 1833 ae aad rie aah ans 15
hamata, Sagitta, MObius, 1875 ahs zeh ca WAS BH A ae ‘ee 13
Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895... a ae fe sat om ae ... 204
hibberti, Megalichthys, Agassiz, 1835 a se ane Me: ae Soke
hibberti, Rhizodus, Owen, 1840 3a se aia ae see fu weet mule
Hippella Moerch, 1861 ate ids wa ae ae aur ae sax) Oe
hippopus, Hippella, Moerch, 1861 ... ae a as ofa We Siete sil)
histrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1821 ... oe ee he Ae “a2 fe aa 87
Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime, 1849 ... ae aie re ax: oe 22
Holoptychius Agassiz, 1839 ... Se Ae ae a ae Bs sae ste 20
Holothrips Amyot & Serville, 1843... is Bet wes is Sa Ae te heG
houttuyni, Esox, Walbaum, 1792... ne wee aP Ef a ee Se
Hiibner, 1808 work ... ak = Ae an ae Smee
hudsonius, Hippocampus, De nea 1342 ae aoe "ep are te ivcliavsilol ey
Hypaeus, Simon, 1900 bet aoe 23s ane aoe ve Shin “et ppe2G
hyperborea, Yoldia, Torell, 1859... oe 5 xe iy cae hiss 33
Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819]... or “ne oe nits an Fos ak (ok
hystrix, Eolidia, Otto; Alder & Hancock ... i ate By aes a 87
icasia, Phalaena, Cramer, 1777 Sie ee te Dee re oe ae 218
idalia, Megalopta, Smith, 1853 ae st , “tt Bf _ bib
immaculatus, Salmo, Linnaeus, 1758 ah ia eae ban Wie Fs 41
imperialis, Esox, Rafinesque, 1810 ... Bet BAe wh a = ree CS)
INACHINAE McLeay, 1838... “eee a ee ae om ate a 20
Inachus Weber, 1795 . ae aS Ae uae ul sat es 19
inoptatus, eeolactilas, Barbour, 1914 Sec ath ‘ay ee aoe Fon) LOW
isingleena, Clupea, Richardson, 1846 Sic sy if ae = 62, 147
japonica, Anguilla, Temminck & Schlegel, 1846 ... Bi ae Be as 63

japonica, Cuthona (Hervia), Baba, 1937... Fae ee Be yt ie 98

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Kerr, 1792 work
Krohnia Langerhans, 1880

lacinulata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791

lateralis, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758

laucha, Mus, Fischer, 1814 ... an
leiogaster, Sardinella, Valenciennes, 1847 ..
lenkoranicus, Gobius, Kessler, 1877...
Leptoclinum Milne Edwards, 1841 ...
leucospilota, Stichopus, Brandt, 1835
listerianum, Leptoclinum, Milne Edwards, 1841
longirostris, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1775

lucifuga, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833
lutea, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833

Machaeraria Cooper, 1955 ...

Macrochoeta Macquatt, 1851

Macropodia (Leach, 1814]

Macropus Latreille, [1802-1803]

maculata, Rana, Daudin, 1801

marggravii, Salmo (Curimata), [Walbaum, 1792) .
marisrubri, Esox belone, Bloch & Schneider, 1801
marshalli, Opopsitta, Iredale, 1946 ...
martinicensis, Hylodes, Tschudi, 1838

maxima, Salpa, Forskal, 1775

megacephalus, Mus, Fischer, 1814 ...
Megalichthys Agassiz, 1835 ...

Megalopta Smith, 1853

Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932 aes
mesolobus, Chonetes, Norwood & Pratten, 1854 ...
microlepis, Sphalerosophis, Jan, 1865

mildei, Amphisbaena, Peters, 1878 ...

minimus, Limax, Forskal, 1775

minor, Arengus, Cornide, 1788

Miris Fabricius, 1794...

mitra, Voluta, Linnaeus, 1758

moebii, Holothuria, Ludwig, 1883

Montagua Bate; Fleming

mucronatus, Belemnites, Link, 1807...

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Nana Schumacher, 1817 hs : ee hi fac Bes ah el 22m
nana, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842. #5 Aa Be te. ror ee 84
neglecta, Aeolis, Lovén, 1846 oa ae ae 4 ae ae a; 85
Neolycaena deNicéville, 1890 sat = ed ost se af HO aes)
neriteum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758 or Ae mk ae oe Peper h es]
nigrellus, Anthocoris, Zetterstedt, 1838 ae he ps we aie ae) a 1H
nigricornis, Anthocoris, Zetterstedt, 1838 ... ae eee ae be ae MEE
nisibis, Neocheritra, deNicéville, 1895 Pas a oe Lae 52 si) | 2
nitidulum, Chaetoderma, Lovén, 1844 af hey de eke ite ei 22
nobilis, Mulleria, Selenka, 1867 ne Si i a A see 2b 1S
nobilissimus, Holoptychius, Agassiz, 1839 ... im ne ac be. Pea eal 70,
nymphaea, Clupea, Richardson, 1846 Ae in mm By ee 62, 147
obscurus, Attus, Taczanowski, 1872... $4 ass ae ake Ae tap AOD
ochracea, Coenonympha, Edwards, 1861... Pes Pa a ae eh, 31
ornatum, Phelsuma, Gray, 1825 oy dm ey £23 a0 ae Jom ot AG
Pactolus Leach, 1815 ... Bs = heh va nee Ne ff: ox 20
Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837 ... Ae Ase is 1a sak B3 fo Ss
pallida, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842 ote ae sae Pee sia es 84
Pan Oken, 1816 re sie oe e See Sep eed 70 De 67
Panthera Oken, 1816... Eo a a oe et of Ser oe 67
papillosus, Limax, Linnaeus, 1761 ... oe ae me Sel ay s... . 100
Patanga Uvarov, 1923 Be ae ma os Ea sits sa, Leo
peachii, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1348 a a aS Pee ce sea oe NOS
penicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817 Se Sor ds aus vat Pe 22
pennata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 tt sys sets mae oe ado 95
pentagona, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833 55 bh a wee cae 15
peregrina, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 oe ee #93 be Ai ie 93
perlata, Mitra, [Roding], 1798 cer Ay as “ae ea an nauiss
Phalangium, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775 nee Ee a2 aa bee au 19
Phasia Latreille, 1804 ae 33 a = £2 324 ze . 9, 134, 196
PHLAEOTHRIPIDAE Uzel, 1895 ae a ai = ie ee emia bed
Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836 ... 456 ap Bo ine ay ae 126, 195
picta, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1847 ae 5 oe aa oF aes 85
pilchardus, Clupea, Walbaum, 1792... 45 ven ae ar es Fee. aay
pinnata, Salpa, Forskal, 1775 pe aaa a fee ys ne at, Se
Pithecops Horsfield, 1828... ae Ate te aus nity ais ae 6
Podalonia Spinola, 1853; Fernald, 1927... “et ee ake ae a 48
Portlandia Morch, 1857 ihe he ee afi: Bs Nee VF bas 33
Precuthona Odhner, 1929 _... ae ae ay oe bs: ian yf TOS
Prionotropis Meek, 1876 a Pre MA as es BA a ot) 57

PROCHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910 ... tate aes ms AA See on 42

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829

Prospaltella Ashmead, 1904 ...
Proteinus Latreille, 1796
Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831
Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886...
Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852
Pseudosquille Eydoux & Souleyet, 1842
Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844
pulcher, Pterochilus, Alder & Hancock, 1844
pulicarius, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758
pusillus, Tinodes, McLachlan, 1862...
pygmaeus, Anthocoris, Fallén, 1807...
Pygophora Schiner, 1868 ,
pyriformis, Geodia, Michelin, [1847]

quadratus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1798...
quadricolor, Hervia, Barnard, 1927 ...

radicana, Griselda, Heinrich, 1923 .
radicana, Paedisca, eo 1879
Ratton, Brants, 1827 .

Reepenia Friese, 1909

rhinoides, Trypetes, Gyllenhal, 1836
Rhizodus Owen, 1840...

Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877

rostratus, Cancer, Linneaus, 1761
rufescens, Polycheira, Brandt, 1835
rufus, Mus, Fischer, 1814

Rybaxis Saulcy, 1876...

Salpa Forskal, 1775 ...

sanctipauli, Condylocardia, Bctiicd: 1896 .
Sanguineus, Pselaphus, Reichenbach, 1816 ...
Ssanguinipes, Gryllus, Fabricius, 1798
Sardina Antipa, 1904...

schlotheimii, Terebratula, von Bish: [ 1834]
Schneideri, Bryaxis, Kugelann, 1794
Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758

scolopendra, Coronis, Latreille, 1828
Scoptes Hiibner, [1819]

securiger, Pselaphus, Reichenbach, 1816
Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940
Serpula Linnaeus, 1758

SERPULIDAE Lamarck, 1818 ...

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
seticornis, Cancer, Herbst, 1788 <s Bh pe ee 2 La ax 19
setiferus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1767... a 283 oe ae Ps a 76
sinuatus, Cardinalis, Bonaparte, 1838 Ba —- a ne tk zane 201
sirtalis, Thamnophis, Linnaeus, 1758 Foe ie ie dey he a 38
Smerdis Leach, 1817 . as Abe aan ar at i” sioetw20§
soemmerringii, Eolida, eRe 1828 a Ze is ace nh 5.eamlO2
Spalerosophis Jan, 1865 Fi. Pr a fh wds Mh sé sxe thn2Z2g,
Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865... Sexe aoe an om gh: oh sti ay22o
SQUILLIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] ... hae a Lf bin vfs Jen 205
Stenopoda Laporte, 1833... Hae a ae in de. ate sata S64,
STENOPODAINAE Stal, 1859... a Mae ee a. A one .. 164
Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818 bie ae ct an x a 538 19
Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818 oe a ks ban aug See tt 20
Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 ... “6 tie ae: i sat es “idk 35)
STENOSCISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887... mae ae = Sar sis ae 35
stigmatella, Anthocoris, Zetterstedt, 1838 ... rag eee ue ores ace) amaleonl
Stizus Latreille, [1802-1803]... 2 ast ie Ds ve me ae 7
succinctus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1763 ... ve sf ae sis at eengess
syringella, Tinea, Fabricius, 1794... ke ay. ee ao aoe os aliso:
taczanowskii, Acragas, Mello-Leitao, 1948... ne ae es Pay ooo
tarsonigro, Mus, Fischer, 1814 eh a ae a a be i SS
taylorensis, Anomalina, Carsey, 1926 hoe nae et & zat Se erass
Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832 Lo pc nh soe AS. a
TERGIPEDINAE Bergh, 1889... e “aE se soe Bid ie sf 85
Tergipes Cuvier, 1805, et al.... nen Ss, ae gh aa hes ee 84
tergipes, Limax, Forskal, 1775 ae ae 4 ae A ote ay: 84
Thalia Blumenbach, 1798... ne ae an Ar i Ah 2 2A 32.
Thrix Doherty, 1891 ... a a a: ee a a ae wise Wea
timama, Holothuria, Lesson, 1830 ... ek oe ee woh Sag ra 15
trachura, Amphisbaena, Cope, 1885... i. ve oe <i a eae wal ty
triangularis, Ambalodus, Branson & Mehl, 1933 ... nae ee nae 7)" |
tricolor, Eubranchus, Forbes, 1838 ... ee Ass Le ei = ok 87
Trinchesia hering, 1879 a a sae ve “i Sas a a 95
Trychosis Foerster, 1868 Be Ae tas aa mi Lae Seth ae 8
Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836 ... ae ae Aue ee oii Sad e: 46
TRYPETESINAE Lacordaire, 1866 aa cae sat sigt a nae “ 46
tubusvermicularis, Teredo, Bergius, 1765... us oe ich ae Ai 29
tucotuco, Ratton, Brants, 1827 ee eu mr ahs add BS oe DAS
umbra, Sciaena, Linnaeus, 1758 _... — on She mt im de 2

unicolor, Cornufer, Tschudi, 1838... ta Si se B ite 26 TST

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301

Page
Valanga Uvarov, 1923 Sy m. Le Wy mt Ai: set wand Py236
variabilis, Nomia, Friese, 1909 ae oes ih he aa a ne 21
variegatus, Stichopus, Semper, 1868 m a: ri en ins Sat 16
veranyi, Diplocera, Blanchard, 1848 Ses hc ne a ao SLOG
vermicularis, Ser pula, Linnaeus, 1767 a NE ft 5a os a8 29
verrucosa, Eolidia, Sars, 1829 Ste wee wot oe itt — sip alO4
violaceipennis, Ammophila, Lepeletier, 1845 sich te aon aire ee 51
woollgari, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822 BPA ae Aue 45 oe es Si
Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825... SAA aie spy ie aes oe Sel 32.
Yoldia Moller, 1842 ... aye Bae ber ss AC si bee eo: 33
zieglerella, Tinea, Hiibner, 1796. oe = ae ie & ees 5

Zorilla Geoffroy, 1826 As 28 os Be e fs a a 74

302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN
DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 23

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology

Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 Favorinus Gray, 1850
Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 Flabellina Voigt, 1834
Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 Godiva Macnae, 1954
Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837 Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827
Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, Griselda Heinrich, 1923
[1850] Hemisquilla Hansen, 1895
Baetis (Leach, 1815] Hypercompe Hiibner, [1819]
Calma Alder & Hancock, 1855 Inachus Weber, 1795
Cardinalis Bonaparte, 1838 Machaeraria Cooper, 1955
Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844 Macropodia [Leach, 1814]
Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 Megalopta Smith, 1853
Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931 Mesolobus Dunbar & Condra, 1932
Coronida Brooks, 1886 Portlandia Morch, 1857
Coronis Desmarest, 1823 Precuthona Odhner, 1929
Coryphella Gray, 1850 Prochilodus Agassiz, 1841
Cratena Bergh, 1864 Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852
Cumanotus Odhner, 1907 Reepenia Friese, 1909
Curimata Bosc, 1817 Sardina Antipa, 1904
Cuthona Alder & Hancock, 1855 Serpula Linnaeus, 1758
Cuthonella Bergh, 1884 Spalerosophis Jan, 1865
Cyclope Risso, 1826 Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818
Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839
Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 Tergipes Cuvier, 1805
Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 Trinchesia thering, 1879
Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 Yoldia Moller, 1842

Official List of Specific Names in Zoology

abyssicola, Cuthonella, Bergh, 1884 caerulea, Doris, Montagu, 1804
aculeata, Holothuria, Semper, 1868 cardinalis, Loxia, Linnaeus, 1758
affinis, Doris, Gmelin, 1791 chiragra, Squilla, Fabricius, 1781
arctica, Nucula, Gray, 1824 ciliata, Squilla, Fabricius, 1787
argenteus, Prochilodus, Agassiz, 1829 coluber, Holothuria, Semper, 1868
aurantia, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842 debilis, Leptopodia, Smith, 1871
auriculata, Doris, Miller, 1776 dorsettensis, Cancer, Pennant, 1777
australis, Colochirus, Ludwig, 1875 edentulus, Salmo, Bloch, 1794
beaumonti, Coryphella, Eliot, 1906 elachistus, Paratylenchus, Steiner, 1949
bradyi, Squilla, Milne Edwards, 1869 ensiger, Gonodactylus, Owen, 1832
branchialis, Doris, Rathke, 1806 exigua, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1848

buccalis, Thyone, Stimpson, 1856 farrani, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303

flavopictus, Asthraeus, Laporte & Gory,
1837

formosa, Rhynchonella, Hall, 1857
fuscata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1758
gassinensis, Chapmania, Silvestri, 1905

glaucoides, Eolis, Alder & Hancock,
1854

hamata, Sagitta, Mobius, 1875
hyperborea, Yoldia, Torell, 1859
icasia, Phalaena, Cramer, 1777

idalia, Megalopta, Smith, 1853
japonica, Cuthona (Hervia), Baba, 1937
leucospilota, Stichopus, Brandt, 1835
longirostris, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775

mesolobus, Chonetes, Norwood &
Pratten, 1854

microlepis, Sphalerosophis, Jan, 1865
moebii, Holothuria, Ludwig, 1883
nana, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842
neriteum, Buccinum, Linnaeus, 1758
nitidulum, Chaetoderma, Lovén, 1844
nobilis, Mulleria, Selenka, 1867
ochracea, Coenonympha, Edwards, 1861
pallida, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842
papillosus, Limax, Linnaeus, 1761
peachii, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1848
penicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817

peregrina, Doris, Gmelin, 1791
phalangium, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775
pilchardus, Clupea, Walbaum, 1792

pulcher, Pterochilus, Alder & Hancock,
1844

pyriformis, Geodia, Michelin, [1847]
quadratus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1798
quadricolor, Hervia, Barnard, 1927
radicana, Griselda, Heinrich, 1923
radicana, Paedisca, Walsingham, 1879
rostratus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1761
rufescens, Polycheira, Brandt, 1835

schlotheimii, Terebratula, von Buch,
[1834]

scolopendra, Coronis, Latreille, 1828
seticornis, Cancer, Herbst, 1788
sinuatus, Cardinalis, Bonaparte, 1838
soemmerringii, Eolidia, Leuckart, 1828
tergipes, Limax, Forskal, 1775

triangularis, Ambalodus, Branson &
Mehl, 1933

tricolor, Eubranchus, Forbes, 1838
variabilis, Nomia, Friese, 1909
variegatus, Stichopus, Semper, 1868
vermicularis, Serpula, Linnaeus, 1767
verrucosa, Eolidia, Sars, 1829

Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology

AEOLIDIIDAE d’Orbigny, 1834
AXOPORIDAE Boschma, 1951

CALMIDAE Iredale & O’Donoghue, 1923
CARDINALINAE Sushkin, 1925
CHAETODERMATIDAE von Jhering, 1876
CORYPHELLIDAE Bergh, 1889

CURIMATINAE Eigenmann & Eigenmann,
1889

CUTHONIDAE Odhner, 1934
EUBRANCHIDAE Odhner, 1934

FACELININAE Bergh, 1889
FAVORININAE Bergh, 1889
FLABELLININAE Bergh, 1889
INACHINAE McLeay, 1838
PROCHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910
SERPULIDAE Lamarck, 1818
SQUILLIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803]
STENOSCISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887
TERGIPEDINAE Bergh, 1889

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

Achatia Hiibner, 1808
Aeolidina Pruvot-Fol, 1951
Aeolis Menke, 1844

Aethalion Herrmannsen, 1846
Agrotis Hiibner, 1808
Alimerichthus Claus, 1871

304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ambolodus Branson & Mehl, 1934?
Apatele Hiibner, 1808

Arengus Cornide, 1788

Ascalapha Hiibner, 1808

Blephara Hiibner, 1808

Blepharum Hibner, 1808
Blepharidia Piingeler, 1900
Camarophoria Herrmannsen, 1846
Camerophoria King, 1846
Cardinalis Jarocki, 1821
Chaetoderma Moser, 1907
Chaetoderma Swainson, 1839
Chapmania Silvestri & Prever, 1904

Chetoderma Kowalevsky & Marion,
1887

Chilolepis Fitzinger, 1843
Choetoderma Swainson, 1839
Chyrsaor Hiibner, 1808
Chrysaor Hiibner, [1809]
Chrystallophrisson Litken, 1877
Chrystallophrysson Wirén, 1892
Coroniderichthus Hansen, 1895
Coronis Gloger, 1827

Coronis Hiibner, 1823
Crystallophrysson Graff, 1875
Curimata Walbaum, 1792

Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’Donoghue,
1923

Diphthera Hiibner, 1808
Diphthera Sluiter, 1888
Diplocera Blanchard, 1848
Elasmia Hiibner, 1822
Elasmion Hiibner, 1808
Eolia Cuvier, 1800

Eolida Fleming, 1828
Eolidia Cuvier, 1816
Eolidina Quatrefages, 1843
Eolis Cuvier, 1805
Epirrita Hiibner, 1808
Erastria Hiibner, 1808
Erastria Ochsenheimer, 1816
Erpyzon Hiibner, 1808
Ethalion Risso, 1826
Euclidia Hiibner, 1808
Flabellina Cuvier, 1830

Flabellina de Gregorio, 1930
Flabellina Levinson, 1902
Flabellina d’Orbigny, 1839
Glaucopis Bonaparte, 1854
Glaucopis Fabricius, 1807
Glaucopis Hiibner, 1808
Glaea Curtis, 1829

Gloee Hiibner, 1808
Gonerichthus Brooks, 1886
Hamadryas Albers, 1850
Hamadryas Boisduval, 1832
Hamadryas Cantor, 1838
Hamadryas Clemens, 1864
Hamadryas Hiibner, 1808
Hamadryas Lesson, 1840
Hamadryas Mikan, 1821
Heliaca Herrich-Schaffer, [1851]
Heliaca Hiibner, 1808
Heliothis Hiibner, 1808
Hipocrita Hiibner, 1808
Hipocrita Hiibner, [1810]

Holaraea Milne Edwards & Haime,
1849

Hypocrita Hiibner, 1808
Hypocrita Saussure, 1868
Hypercompe Hiibner, 1808
Idia Fieber, 1866

Idia Hiibner, 1808

Idia Lamouroux, 1816
Idia Wiedemann, 1820
Jaspidia Hiibner, 1808
Krohnia Langerhans, 1880
Macropus Latreille, [1802-1803]
Mancipium Hibner, 1808
Montagua Spence Bate, 1856
Montagua Fleming, 1822
Najas Hiibner, 1808

Nana Schumacher, 1817
Nereis Conrad, 1860
Nereis Hiibner, [1806]
Nereis Hiibner, 1808
Nereis Warren, 1908
Oreas Agassiz, 1846
Oreas Desmarest, 1822
Oreas Hiibner, [1807]
Oreas Hiibner, 1808

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305

Oreas Montfort, 1808

Pactolus Leach, 1815

Palpita Hiibner, 1808

Petrophora Hiibner, 1808

Prophyla Hiibner, 1808
Pseuderichthus Brooks, 1886
Pseuderichthus Dames, 1886
Pseudosquille Eydoux & Souleyet, 1842
Pterochilus Alder & Hancock, 1844
Ptilodon Hiibner, 1808

Rizzolia Trinchese, 1877

Rusticus Hiibner, 1808

Smerdis Leach, 1817

Sphalerosophis Jan, 1865
Sphecomorpha Hiibner, 1808
Stenochisma Schuchert, 1897
Stenocisma Hall, 1847
Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818
Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887
Tergipes Fleming, 1828
Tergipes Risso, 1818

Terpne Hiibner, 1808
Tetrachila Hiibner, 1808
Tribonophora Hiibner, 1808
Xanthia Fairmaire, 1893
Xanthia Hiibner, 1808

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology

alba, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1844

albifasciata, Holothuria, Quoy &
Gaimard, 1833

aurantiaca, Eolis, Alder & Hancock,
1851

bioculata, Ephemera, Linnaeus, 1758
brochi, Tergipes, Risso, 1818
ceratentoma, Eolidia, Otto, 1821
cerentatoma, Eolidia, Pruvot-Fol, 1954
chrysotis, Certhia, Latham, 1801
curimata, Salmo, Walbaum, 1792
dicquemari, Tergipes, Risso, 1818
elongatus, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860
fasciculata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791
fusca, Fistularia, Quoy & Gaimard,

guamensis, Holothuria, Quoy &
Gaimard, 1833

histrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1821
hystrix, Eolidia, Otto, 1923
hystrix, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1842

immaculatus, Salmo, Linnaeus, 1758

lacinulata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791

lucifuga, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard,
1833

ere oe Quoy & Gaimard,

marggravii, Salmo (Curimata)
[Walbaum, 1792]

minimus, Limax, Forskal, 1775
minor, Arengus, Cornide, 1788
neglecta, Aeolis, Lovén, 1846
pennata, Doris, Gmelin, 1791
pennicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817

pentagona, Holothuria, Quoy &
Gaimard, 1833

picta, Eolis, Alder & Hancock, 1847
sommeringii, Aeolidiella, Suter, 1913
timama, Holothuria, Lesson, 1830
tubusvermicularis, Teredo, Bergius, 1765
veranyi, Diplocera, Blanchard, 1848

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology

AEOLIDAE Locard, 1886
AEOLIDIADAE Bergh, 1888
AEOLIDIDAE Bergh, 1870
AEOLIDINA MacGillivray, 1843
CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883

EOLIDIDAE d’Orbigny, 1843
EOLIDINA Gray, 1847
EOLIDININAE Pruvot-Fol, 1951

STENOSCHISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887

Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature

Cornide, 1788, Ensayo de una historia de Hiibner, 1808, Erste Zutrdge zur Samm-
los Peces y otras producciones marinas lung exotischer Schmetterlinge
de la Costa de Galicia, arreglado al
sistema del Caballero Carlos Linneo

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CORRIGENDA

page 6. Line 3: substitute ‘‘ volume 22 ” for ‘‘ volume 21 ”
page 35. Para. (2) (b), line 1: substitute ‘‘ Rhynchonella”’ for ‘“‘ Rhychonella”

page 182. Para. (1), line 3 : substitute ““ Homonymy ” for “ Priority ”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307

PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED

Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication
(pages)
1 1-64 29th April 1966
2/3 65-128 19th July 1966
4 129-192 14th October 1966
193-256 20th December 1966
6 257-308

T.P.-XII 30th December 1966

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS

The present volume should be bound up as follows: T.P.—XII, 1-308

Note: The wrappers (covers) of the six parts should be bound in at the end of
the volume.

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)

Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director)

Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E.
Prof. Dr. R. Sparck
Dr. N. R. Stoll
Mr. C. W. Wright
Dr. G. F. de Witte
B. The Officers of the Trust

W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller)
Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

New Cases
Report on the activity of the Commission regarding the clarification of
Code Article 23b ...

Opinions
Opinion 795 (Astraeus Laporte & Gory, 1837)
Opinion 796 (Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933) au
Opinion 797 (Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854) ...
Opinion 798 (Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798) ...
Opinion 799 (Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792))

New Cases

Kerr, 1792, The Animal Kingdom (Mammalia): Proposal to place this
work on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for
Zoological Nomenclature (Hans-Jiirg Kuhn; E. Eisenmann)

Opopsitta marshalli Iredale, 1946 (Aves): Proposed setting aside of
holotype and designation of neotype. (Joseph M. Forshaw)

Application to place on the appropriate Official List the names given by
G. Fischer, 1814, to the Cricetid Rodents described by Felix de
Azara in the French translation of “‘ Essais sur histoire naturelle
des Quadrupédes du Paraguay’, 1801. (Alfredo Langguth)

Page

258

269
271
273
275
277

279

283

285

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Indexes Page

Index to Authors cap ee AN sop ace e: te Sta ae

List of Decisions in this Volume _... et ee ne Bohs Sin ee

Index to Key Names ... o. or af Be: bay $5 ee
Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decision published in this

Volume... 3 $45 ae se ce a an ee |

Corrigenda.... ae Js ie di ae e pe w 306

© 1966. Te INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment

prritrertesrssattepsgtesy

Prereres
ab Pererererttotee sesti ries
Sse ases este este sre tie ese tte e ety
pasTeterere terete tsett stipe tene ta
roiesestspetieeerteste ters Stele tte tees)

eerertss

Seaene=
ees tet ele tiles

wy.
rf

pupoeetwrereye

revestrr stare!

eretits
Set ete teeter

reaiieers
Ditetsess

siliesieess
SS itstotshihe bettas?

oaeeee
ait
atitaratey
veheae
ase

cpeietaee
sores

Veernenet
ea
tt
$3

ot
.*

shetetete
“

etetee
see

Prieteretet:

seri
deteyecs®
rere
ahataretetete

tater

eaererereatarirttit errs!

2525235

335
ersatats)
Meh

ree

PPeeitiiititiest its

ererprerri STP rtl es
z. ere rree pote
Pitititititessts +t oa

ae
beth

rratrts er sstest str errees
prerere ciel eet t itt tite baee ae
titsrirrtotete si rot tite bessabel

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats